Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart
14 N.Y.S.3d 726
| NY | 2015Background
- Doerr v. Goldsmith: bicyclist struck Doerr's dog in Central Park after owner Smith allegedly called the dog across a bike path; plaintiff sued for negligence (no strict-liability claim). Defendant moved for summary judgment; mixed Appellate Division rulings; certified question to Court of Appeals.
- Dobinski v. Lockhart: bicyclist Dobinski struck one of Lockharts’ German shepherds that ran into the road from adjacent farm; suit pleaded negligence and strict liability. Defendants moved for summary judgment; Appellate Division granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint; plaintiff appealed.
- Central legal question: whether New York allows common-law negligence claims against owners of domestic (non-farm) animals for injuries caused by the animals, or whether recovery is limited to strict liability based on known vicious propensities (the Bard line).
- The Court reaffirmed Bard v. Jahnke and related precedent, declined to extend Hastings (which created a negligence theory for farm animals allowed to stray) to household pets, and answered the certified question in Doerr by granting summary judgment to the dog owner.
- In Dobinski the Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment on strict-liability grounds because plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue that owners had notice of vicious propensities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claims lie against owners of domestic pets for injuries caused by the pet | Doerr/Dobinski: owner’s affirmative act or failure to restrain (calling/releasing the dog) can create ordinary negligence liability; Hastings principle should extend to pets | Bard line: New York law limits animal-caused injury recovery to strict liability based on known vicious propensity; negligence claims barred for domestic (non-farm) animals | Held: Negligence claims barred by Bard and its progeny for domestic pets; Hastings limited to farm animals that stray |
| Whether Hastings (farm-animal exception) extends to household pets | Plaintiffs: Hastings’ reasoning (liability when animal is allowed to stray) should apply to dogs | Defendants/Court: Hastings expressly limited to farm animals; pets differ in risk, training, and societal expectations | Held: Hastings does not extend to dogs/cats; rule limited to farm animals |
| Whether owner’s affirmative act (calling/releasing dog) distinguishes the case from Bard | Plaintiffs: using animal as an instrumentality (act vs omission) creates negligence liability | Court: both acts and omissions still depend on the animal’s volitional conduct; no duty recognized under Bard to control a pet absent known vicious propensity | Held: Act/omission distinction rejected; affirmative acts do not create a negligence cause where Bard applies |
| Strict liability (notice of vicious propensity) on summary judgment (Dobinski) | Dobinski: evidence (training behind four-wheeler; other dogs incidents) raises triable issue of owner notice | Lockharts: no evidence of actual/constructive notice; other incidents involved different dogs; exercise on property not training to chase vehicles | Held: Defendants met burden; plaintiff failed to show triable issue on notice; strict-liability claim dismissed on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (NY 2006) (holds that liability for harm caused by domestic animals is governed solely by the vicious-propensity strict-liability rule, barring ordinary negligence claims)
- Petrone v. Fernandez, 12 N.Y.3d 546 (NY 2009) (applies Bard to bar negligence claims against dog owners and holds leash-law violations do not revive negligence theory absent proof of vicious propensity)
- Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d 122 (NY 2013) (creates a limited exception: negligence claim permitted when a farm animal is negligently allowed to stray from the property)
- Bloomer v. Shauger, 21 N.Y.3d 917 (NY 2013) (applies Bard; rejects negligence claim where owner’s handling of a horse caused injury but no known vicious propensity was shown)
- Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (NY 2004) (articulates the vicious-propensity strict-liability rule for domestic animals)
- Smith v. Reilly, 17 N.Y.3d 895 (NY 2011) (applies Bard to bar negligence recovery where a dog ran into the road and collided with a bicyclist absent proof of known vicious propensity)
- Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 787 (NY 2008) (applies Bard to dismiss negligence claim by a child injured while petting a dog; emphasizes need for proof of vicious propensity)
- Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824 (NY 2014) (summarizes summary-judgment burdens applicable to the strict-liability/notice inquiry)