Flanders v. Goodfellow: How the 2025 Court of Appeals Decision Changed New York Dog Bite Law for Mauling Victims
Most New Yorkers believe a dog gets "one free bite" before its owner can be held responsible for anything. The thinking goes like this: if the dog never bit anyone before, the owner walks away, no matter how badly you were hurt. That belief was never quite accurate, and as of April 2025 it's flatly wrong. In Flanders v. Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 (2025), the New York Court of Appeals overruled nearly two decades of precedent and held that dog attack victims can sue owners for ordinary negligence. New York dog bite law now gives mauling victims two separate paths to recovery instead of one narrow door.
Key takeaways
In 2025, New York's highest court ruled that dog attack victims can sue owners for ordinary negligence, not just strict liability.
You no longer need proof that the owner knew the dog was vicious to bring a claim for careless handling.
The older strict liability rule still exists and remains a powerful second theory in the same lawsuit.
Severe maulings often involve nerve damage, infection, staged surgeries, and lasting psychological harm, all of which count as damages.
Homeowners or renters insurance, not the owner's personal bank account, usually pays these claims.
Did Dogs in New York Really Get "One Free Bite" Before 2025?
Not literally, but for many victims the old rule worked out that way in practice. Before 2025, New York courts followed Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006), which held that the only way to recover against an animal's owner was strict liability. Strict liability means the owner is responsible without any proof of carelessness, but there was a catch: you had to show the owner knew, or should have known, that the animal had "vicious propensities." That phrase means a tendency to act in a way that could hurt people, such as biting, lunging, or snapping.
Under Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004), a prior bite wasn't strictly required. Growling, baring teeth, or straining against a chain to get at visitors could be enough. So the "one free bite" label was always a simplification.
Here's where the old rule truly failed people. If the owner genuinely had no notice of any aggression, you had no case at all, even if the owner did something obviously careless. An owner in Suffolk County could let a 90-pound dog roam a busy job site off leash, or open the front door to a delivery driver with an agitated dog unrestrained at their side, and face zero liability as long as the dog had a clean history. Bard expressly barred negligence claims against animal owners. New York stood nearly alone among the fifty states in taking that position, and New York dog bite law stayed frozen there for nineteen years.
Can You Sue a Dog Owner for Negligence If the Dog Never Showed Aggression Before?
Yes. That's the core holding of Flanders v. Goodfellow, and it's the biggest shift in this area of law in a generation. Negligence simply means the failure to use reasonable care. After Flanders, a jury can ask whether a reasonable dog owner would have leashed, crated, or restrained the animal under the circumstances, regardless of whether the dog ever hurt anyone before.
The facts of the case show why the change matters. Rebecca Flanders was a postal carrier delivering a package to a home in upstate Oswego County. When the owner opened the door, the family's dog got past him and bit her, causing serious injuries. The owners swore they had no idea the dog could be dangerous. Under the old rule, that sworn denial might have ended the case. The Court of Appeals used the opportunity to overrule Bard outright, holding that animal owners, like everyone else in New York, owe a duty of reasonable care. The Court had already allowed a negligence claim against a non-owner in Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic, 35 N.Y.3d 541 (2020), where a dog attacked a client inside a vet's waiting room, and Flanders extended that logic to owners themselves. We covered the decision when it first came down in our April 2025 Court of Appeals update and in a deeper breakdown of what Flanders means for pet owner liability.
One practical consequence hasn't gotten much attention yet. Nearly every municipality in New York, including the towns and villages across Nassau and Suffolk Counties, has a local leash ordinance. Under Bard, an unleashed-dog violation got a victim nowhere, because there was no negligence claim to attach it to. After Flanders, that same ordinance violation can serve as powerful evidence of carelessness, even for a dog with a spotless history. And because Flanders is a common-law ruling, trial courts have been applying it to cases that were already pending when it came down, not just to new attacks.
Do You Still Have to Prove the Owner Knew the Dog Was Dangerous?
Not anymore, at least not for the negligence claim, but proving knowledge still matters because strict liability survives alongside it. Flanders didn't erase the old theory; it added a second one. A well-built lawsuit under current New York dog bite law typically pleads both, and each theory does different work. Strict liability doesn't require showing the owner did anything careless at all, which makes it resistant to defenses about how cautious the owner usually was.
The Flanders decision itself shows how the knowledge element can be proven even when owners deny everything. The Court reinstated Ms. Flanders's strict liability claim because other postal workers testified that, on earlier deliveries, the dog would slam its body against the windows, barking and snarling at them. The owners said they never saw it. The Court held a jury could find they should have known, which lawyers call constructive notice.
Evidence that courts accept as proof of vicious propensities includes:
Prior bites or snaps at people, even ones that didn't break skin
Aggressive lunging, charging fences, or body-slamming doors and windows at passersby
Growling or baring teeth at visitors on multiple occasions
The owner's own precautions, like "Beware of Dog" signs paired with how the dog was actually kept
There's also a statutory layer. Under Agriculture and Markets Law § 123, a person attacked by a dog (or anyone who witnesses the attack) can file a complaint asking a local court to declare the dog dangerous, and the statute authorizes court-ordered measures such as confinement, muzzling, or neutering, along with owner responsibility for resulting medical costs. A dangerous-dog adjudication from an earlier incident can become devastating evidence in a later civil suit. This pattern, where the Court of Appeals recalibrates a duty rule and reshapes everyday injury cases, is the same thing we saw in its recent golf course premises liability decision and in Grady v. Chenango Valley on school sports injuries.
Is a Dog Attack Case Just About Stitches and a Scar?
No. Severe maulings are deep-tissue trauma cases, and treating them as simple laceration claims badly undervalues them. A large dog's jaws generate enough force to sever nerves and tendons, strip away tissue, and leave children with permanent damage to the face, scalp, hands, and arms. Puncture wounds drive bacteria deep under the skin, which is why the Mayo Clinic urges prompt medical care for any deep animal bite, and why infections like cellulitis and sepsis show up in these cases. If the dog's vaccination status can't be confirmed, the CDC recommends rabies post-exposure treatment, a series of injections that alone can carry substantial cost.
The injuries that drive case value often develop over years, not days. A child mauled at age six may need staged scar revisions timed around growth spurts well into the teenage years. Nerve damage in a hand or forearm can mean permanent loss of grip strength for an adult who works with their hands. Psychological harm is real and compensable too: children who survive maulings frequently develop post-traumatic stress, a lasting fear of animals, and sleep disturbances that require years of therapy.
Damages in a New York dog attack case cover past and future medical bills, lost earnings, and pain and suffering, including the emotional toll of living with visible scarring. Proving future damages takes the same disciplined expert work we described in our post on causation and expert proof after Nemeth v. Brenntag: treating surgeons and life-care experts must spell out what procedures are coming and what they'll cost. Keep in mind that CPLR § 214 gives most personal injury actions a three-year window, so the planning should start early even when the medical picture is still developing.
Will the Dog's Owner Have to Pay Out of Their Own Pocket?
Usually not, and this is the misconception that stops more valid claims than any legal rule. Most dog attack claims are paid by the owner's homeowners or renters insurance, which typically includes personal liability coverage. In New York, those liability limits commonly run from $100,000 to $300,000, and owners who carry umbrella policies may have $1 million or more in additional coverage sitting on top.
This matters enormously when the dog belongs to a neighbor, a relative, or a friend, which is true in a large share of serious attacks, especially those involving children. People hesitate to "sue" someone they know. In reality, the claim is presented to and defended by an insurance company, the insurer hires the lawyers, and the insurer writes the check. Declining to pursue the claim doesn't spare your neighbor anything; it only spares their insurance carrier.
Two caveats deserve mention. First, some insurance policies exclude certain breeds or exclude dogs with a prior bite history, so identifying every available policy early is critical. Second, where the attack happens on rented property, there may be a separate claim against a landlord who knew about a dangerous dog and had the power to remove it. After Flanders, insurers can no longer win these cases simply by having the owner swear the dog "never showed aggression before." They know it, and early settlement posture in dog attack cases has already begun to reflect it. You shouldn't give a recorded statement or sign anything from an adjuster before speaking with a lawyer.
Here are answers to questions dog attack victims ask us most often about New York dog bite law:
Frequently Asked Questions
What should I do immediately after a dog attack in New York?
Get medical care right away, even for puncture wounds that look small, because infection and rabies risk are serious. Then identify the dog and its owner, photograph your injuries and the scene, get contact information for witnesses, and report the attack to your local animal control or health department. That report creates an official record that becomes important evidence later.
Can I sue if the dog belonged to a friend or family member?
Yes, and in practice you're pursuing their homeowners or renters insurance, not their personal savings. The insurance company defends the claim and pays any settlement or verdict. Many of the most serious attacks, especially those involving children, happen at the homes of people the victim knows.
Does the Flanders decision apply to animals other than dogs?
Yes. The old rule the Court overruled, Bard v. Jahnke, actually involved a bull, and the new negligence rule applies to domestic animals generally. If a horse, livestock animal, or other pet injures you because the owner handled it carelessly, you can now bring a negligence claim in New York.
Can I hold a landlord responsible for a tenant's dog attack?
Sometimes. A landlord can be liable if they knew the dog was on the property, knew or should have known it was dangerous, and had enough control over the premises to have it removed. This becomes important when the dog's owner is a renter with little or no insurance coverage of their own.
What Should You Remember About Flanders and Your Rights?
The Court of Appeals has put dog owners under the same duty of reasonable care as every other New Yorker, and victims of severe maulings no longer need to prove a prior history of aggression to have a case. Strict liability remains available too, which means two independent routes to accountability for the same attack.
If you or someone you know has suffered serious injuries in a dog attack, the team at Yassi Law PC is ready to help. Call us today at 646-992-2138 for a consultation.
Written by Reza Yassi
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Although I am an attorney, I am not your attorney, and reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws vary by jurisdiction and may have changed since the publication of this article. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified attorney.
.png)