Where harm is caused by a domestic animal, the general rule is the owner will not be liable unless the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities. But what happens when a plaintiff is not alleging his injuries were caused by the misconduct of the animal, but the misconduct of the owner?

In Doerr v Golsmith, defendant dog owner was standing on the opposite side of a street than her dog in Central Park. The dog owner called for the unleashed dog to come to her, and the dog ran across the street to meet her. While crossing the street, the dog collided with plaintiff, who was riding his bike in the street. Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action alleging the defendant failed to take proper precautions in controlling her dog.

Defendant moved for summary judgment, maintaining she was not liable for the dog’s misconduct because she had no reason to believe the dog was vicious. The lower court denied the motion, since plaintiff alleged that it was the defendant’s misconduct, not the dog’s misconduct that caused his injuries.

In reversing the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeals found the general rule governed, and defendant was entitled to summary judgment since she established she did not know of the dog’s vicious propensities.

While the Court of Appeals decision reflects the Court’s tendency to give pet owners the benefit of the doubt, to avoid unnecessary litigation, pet owners should be cautious when bringing dogs into public parks.

Thanks to Caroline Freilich for her contribution to this post.