Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership
87 A.3d 546
Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (father and minor son) were injured when a horse named Scuppy, at defendants’ Glendale Farms, suddenly bit the two‑year‑old, causing serious facial injury requiring surgery.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they had no actual or constructive notice that Scuppy had mischievous propensities; trial court granted judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs opposed with deposition testimony (including the keeper, an animal control officer, and a fire captain) and an equine veterinarian affidavit asserting that horses commonly nip or bite in ordinary circumstances (hand‑feeding, petting, grooming).
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding plaintiffs need not show Scuppy had known vicious propensities if the injury was foreseeable because horses as a class have natural propensities to bite; remanded for trial on foreseeability and negligence.
- Supreme Court framed two issues: (1) whether an owner/keeper owes a duty to prevent foreseeable injuries from a domestic animal that belongs to a class with natural mischievous propensities even absent prior specific bad acts; and (2) whether a genuine issue of fact existed here about foreseeability of Scuppy’s bite.
- Court held as matter of law that owners/keepers owe such a duty (negligence standard, not strict liability) and that plaintiffs’ evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to foreseeability, so Appellate Court’s judgment affirmed and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty of owner/keeper when animal has no known prior vicious acts but belongs to a class with natural mischievous propensities | Owner/keeper must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms arising from class propensities (negligence standard) | No duty absent (1) scienter (knowledge of the animal’s prior viciousness) or (2) animal roaming at large | Held: Duty exists — owner/keeper must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm based on class propensities; negligence, not strict liability, applies |
| Foreseeability standard for injuries from class propensities | Foreseeability may be shown by evidence that the class (e.g., horses) naturally tend to bite under particular circumstances | Plaintiffs must show injury was more likely than not (probability) to be foreseeable | Held: Foreseeability is whether an ordinary person would anticipate harm was likely (an unreasonable risk); not a >50% probability; jury decides when reasonable minds differ |
| Application to Scuppy (summary judgment) | Testimony and expert affidavit raised a factual dispute that horses commonly nip/bite when hand‑fed or petted, making the injury foreseeable | No prior incidents from Glendale Farms; thus no notice and summary judgment proper | Held: Evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to foreseeability; summary judgment improper; remand for trial |
| Liability standard (strict liability vs negligence) | Plaintiffs seek negligence recovery, not strict liability | Defendants argued plaintiffs sought to impose strict or categorical liability on horses | Held: Connecticut law rejects strict liability for domestic animals; negligence governs claims for foreseeable harms, even when based on class propensities |
Key Cases Cited
- Bischoff v. Cheney, 89 Conn. 1 (1914) (recognized categories of domestic‑animal liability and held negligence is the foundation of such actions)
- Hope v. Valente, 86 Conn. 301 (1912) (owner may be negligent for leaving a horse in a situation that makes foreseeable injury)
- Baldwin v. Ensign, 49 Conn. 113 (1881) (dicta regarding liability when owner allows animal to trespass or negligently exposes it on land open to public)
- Woolf v. Chalker, 31 Conn. 121 (1862) (older common‑law recognition of strict liability for ferocious dogs)
- Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC, 280 Conn. 153 (2006) (owners/keepers have superior opportunity and responsibility to foresee and control animal‑related hazards)
- Allen v. Cox, 285 Conn. 603 (2008) (foreseeability is the test for existence of a duty; jury decides foreseeability when disputed)
- Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership, 133 Conn. App. 630 (2012) (Appellate Court decision reversing summary judgment and holding foreseeability based on class propensity can suffice)