NY Court of Appeals Overrules 19-Year Bar on Dog-Bite Negligence Claims

On December 8, 2018, Rebecca Flanders was working her mail route in western New York when she approached the Goodfellow residence to deliver a package. She heard a dog barking inside. No warning signs were posted. When Stephen Goodfellow opened the front door, a 70-pound dog charged past him and bit Flanders in the shoulder.

The bite was severe. The dog tore a muscle in Flanders's shoulder, requiring multiple surgeries and leaving permanent scarring. Two of her fellow postal workers later provided affidavits describing the same dog lunging, snarling, and slamming itself against windows during prior deliveries at that address. The dog had also dragged Michelle Goodfellow to the ground during a walk when it was a puppy, prompting the owners to hire a trainer.

Flanders sued on two theories: strict liability, arguing the owners knew the dog had vicious propensities, and ordinary negligence, arguing the owners simply failed to exercise reasonable care before opening the door. Both claims were dismissed by the trial court and then by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. The dismissal of the negligence count rested on a 2006 Court of Appeals precedent, 'Bard v. Jahnke,' which had categorically barred negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals.

William Mattar, P.C. of Rochester, with attorneys Matthew J. Kaiser and Duane D. Schoonmaker of counsel, appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. The firm argued that the 'Bard' rule was out of step with ordinary tort principles, inconsistent with how 36 other states handle the same question, and had proven unworkable in practice.

On April 17, 2025, the Court of Appeals agreed on both counts. On the strict liability claim, it found the affidavits from postal workers describing the dog's window-lunging behavior created a triable issue of fact about whether the Goodfellows had constructive knowledge of the dog's aggressive tendencies. On the negligence claim, the court overruled 'Bard v. Jahnke' and held that plaintiffs may now sue animal owners under ordinary negligence principles, proving only that the owner failed to exercise due care under the circumstances. The court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated both causes of action, returning the case to the lower courts for trial.