New York Court Revolutionizes Pet Owner Liability Law: Understanding Flanders v. Goodfellow
Updated: 13 hours ago
Updated October 25, 2026
In a watershed ruling that transforms liability for animal-related injuries, the New York Court of Appeals has overturned nearly two decades of precedent that limited pet owners' legal responsibility. The case, Flanders v. Goodfellow, marks a pivotal shift that every New York pet owner should understand.
Key takeaways
New York now lets people hurt by a pet sue the owner for carelessness, even if the owner did not know the animal was dangerous.
An owner who knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous behavior can still be held strictly liable for harm it causes.
Growling, snarling, or trying to bite through a window can be evidence that an owner should have known a dog was dangerous.
Courts judge strict liability and negligence claims separately, so one claim can be dismissed while the other goes forward.
Pet owners should take reasonable precautions, such as securing a dog before opening the door, and check their insurance for animal liability coverage.
The Flanders Case: What Happened?
Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was delivering a package to the Goodfellows' residence when their 70-pound dog escaped through an open door. The dog lunged at Flanders and bit her shoulder, causing a "snap tear" in her muscle that required multiple surgeries and resulted in permanent scarring.
Flanders sued the Goodfellows under two legal theories: strict liability (which requires proving the owners knew their dog had dangerous tendencies) and negligence (claiming the owners failed to exercise reasonable care).
The Court's Revolutionary Decision
Until this ruling, New York courts had followed the precedent set in Bard v. Jahnke (2006), which held that when a domestic animal causes harm, the owner could only be held liable under strict liability principles if they knew or should have known about their animal's "vicious propensities."
The Court of Appeals has now explicitly overruled this aspect of Bard, calling the rule "in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair." The Court determined that continuing to follow Bard "would not achieve the stability, predictability, and uniformity in the application of the law that the doctrine of stare decisis seeks to promote."
What This Means for Pet Owners
This landmark ruling creates a dual approach to liability for animal-caused injuries:
Strict Liability: If an owner knew or should have known their animal had dangerous tendencies, they can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by those tendencies.
Negligence: Even without knowledge of dangerous tendencies, an owner can now be held liable if they failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling their animal.
This change brings New York in line with most other states. Before this ruling, New York was an outlier—approximately 36 states already recognized negligence as a distinct theory for animal-induced injuries, with many following the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518 approach.
Practical Implications for Pet Owners
If you own a pet in New York, this ruling has significant practical consequences:
1. Higher Standard of Care
You now have a legal duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent your animal from causing harm, regardless of whether your pet has shown dangerous tendencies in the past. This might include:
Properly securing your dog when opening the door to greet visitors
Using appropriate restraints when in public
Taking extra precautions with larger breeds or in situations where your animal might feel threatened
2. Insurance Considerations
This ruling makes it more important than ever to ensure your homeowner's or renter's insurance covers animal liability. Many policies include this coverage, but some exclude certain breeds or have coverage limits. Review your policy and consider supplemental coverage if needed.
3. Training and Socialization
Proper training and socialization have always been important for responsible pet ownership, but they now have added legal significance. Investing in professional dog training that helps your pet respond appropriately in various situations can help prevent incidents that might lead to liability.
The Strict Liability Aspect: Still Important
While the negligence pathway is new, the Court also clarified aspects of the existing strict liability standard. In reinstating Flanders's strict liability claim, the Court emphasized that evidence of a dog's aggressive behavior—like growling, snarling, or attempting to bite through windows—can create a triable issue of fact about whether owners should have known of dangerous tendencies.
The Goodfellows claimed they were unaware of their dog's aggressive behavior toward postal workers, but the Court found sufficient evidence to let a jury decide whether they should have known about this behavior, following the principle established in Collier v. Zambito regarding constructive knowledge.
Courts are already applying the new approach, and they look at each claim separately. In LaRocca v. Lauer, 2025 NY Slip Op 04463 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025), a dog bite case, the court upheld dismissal of the strict liability claim because the owners had no notice of the dog's vicious propensities, finding that the plaintiff "failed to raise a triable issue of fact." But it sent the negligence claim back for a new decision on the merits. And in Handel v. Carey, 217 A.D.3d 1222 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023), decided before Flanders under the old rule, a strict liability claim over a dog that knocked someone down failed because nothing showed the defendants knew of the dog's tendency to do the specific act that caused the injury.
Why This Matters to Everyone
Even if you don't own a pet, this ruling affects you. If you're injured by someone's animal, you now have a broader range of legal options for seeking compensation. The previous rule often left injured parties without recourse if an owner could credibly claim ignorance of their animal's dangerous tendencies. Before Flanders, the Appellate Division, First Department, said so in Scavetta v. Wechsler, 149 A.D.3d 202 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2017). There, the court dismissed a negligence claim against an owner who tied his dog to an unsecured bicycle rack only because Bard required it, observing that the rule "immunizes careless supervision of domestic animals by their owners and leaves those harmed in the State of New York without recourse."
The Court recognized this fundamental unfairness, asking: "Why should someone harmed by a domestic animal bear the risk—and the cost—of injury, provided that the animal's owner did not know or have reason to know of a vicious propensity?"
The Bottom Line
This watershed decision balances the rights of animal owners with public safety. While it places more responsibility on pet owners, it also creates a more equitable system for those injured by animals.
As Judge Halligan stated in the Court's opinion, when people go about their daily lives, "the law generally requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm." After nearly two decades as an outlier, New York has now aligned its animal liability law with this fundamental principle of negligence.
For pet owners, the message is clear: The era of "one free bite" is over in New York. Proactive care and caution are now legal necessities, not just ethical responsibilities.
Getting Legal Help After an Animal-Related Injury
If you've been injured by someone's pet or if your pet has injured someone else, it's essential to understand how this new ruling affects your rights and responsibilities. Animal liability cases can be complex, especially during this transition period as courts begin applying the new dual liability approach.
Expect the other side to use every tool it has: surveillance, insurance medical exams, recorded statements, your social media, and a line-by-line review of your medical records. Assume anything you say or post will be read.
Speaking with a personal injury lawyer Manhattan residents trust can help you better understand your legal options. Yassi Law has been following this landmark case closely and is at the forefront of this evolving area of law. Yassi Law understands both strict liability and negligence claims and can help determine the best approach for your unique situation.
Disclaimer:
If you’ve been injured in an animal attack, don’t wait—call Yassi Law today for a free consultation.
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)