If you have been bitten by a dog on Long Island, the legal standards for pursuing compensation have changed. In April 2025, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow, reshaping dog bite liability throughout the state.
There are now two legal theories offering distinct pathways to compensation, and both theories may be applied at the same time. See what they are and talk to a Long Island personal injury attorney for your free case review.
Key Takeaways
- Flanders v. Goodfellow is a landmark New York Court of Appeals Case that reshaped dog bite rules in the state.
- A prior bite isn’t needed to prove vicious propensity in an animal. Constructive knowledge can be proven circumstantially.
- Ordinary negligence is now a potential pathway to recover damages.
How Flanders v. Goodfellow Has Changed Dog Bite Injury Claims
Postal worker Rebecca Flanders was delivering a package to a home in Onondaga County, NY, when the homeowner’s 70 lb. dog rushed through the doorway and attacked her, biting her on the shoulder. The resulting injury required multiple surgeries and left permanent scarring.
Flanders sued the owner under two theories: strict liability and ordinary negligence. The lower courts dismissed both claims; however, the case moved to the Court of Appeals, and on April 17, 2025, it reinstated both causes of action and, in doing so, overturned two decades of New York dog-bite law.
Strict Liability and Vicious Propensities
The first potential avenue for a dog bite case is the theories of strict liability and vicious propensities.
New York has long recognized a strict liability rule for dog owners. Flanders v. Goodfellow leaves this fully intact. Under this rule, an owner who knew or should have known of vicious propensities is strictly liable for the harm their dog causes. This is also referred to as the PVP or “Prior Vicious Propensity” standard.
- An earlier bite is not needed to prove vicious propensity. An experienced personal injury lawyer could build a triable case on evidence like the dog having a history of growling, snapping at people, or baring its teeth. In Flanders v. Goodfellow, the Court confirmed that vicious propensity includes behavior that suggests or reflects the dog’s ability to cause harm. Prior attacks are compelling evidence, but they aren’t required.
- Constructive knowledge can be proven circumstantially. In Flanders v. Goodfellow, there was convincing evidence suggesting that the dog had shown vicious propensity that the owner should have known about. Postal workers gave affidavits describing how they witnessed the dog barking, baring its teeth, snarling, and slamming into windows. This behavior was so extreme that the workers said anyone in the home would have known about it.
It’s crucial that victims document everything, including the dog’s behavior immediately before and during the attack, but also in earlier encounters. A personal injury attorney can help by investigating and securing other potential evidence, like witness accounts, neighbor complaints, social media posts, prior reported incidents, and animal control records.
Ordinary Negligence in Dog Bite Cases
The crucial change from Flanders v. Goodfellow is that the Court’s decision overturns Bard v. Jahnke. This case from 2006 barred negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals. For two decades, it meant that victims couldn’t recover damages if they couldn’t prove vicious propensity.
The Court of Appeals reasoned in Flanders v. Goodfellow that the old rule was problematic because it was inconsistent with similar standards in other states, and that it had unfair outcomes. The Court found that the cost of injuries was left with victims, and careless owners had little incentive to control their dogs.
By allowing ordinary negligence, the Court has empowered victims to sue an owner when they don’t exercise reasonable care. The standard of reasonable care under the circumstances will vary, but could include examples like:
- Allowing a dog to run off a leash in violation of local laws.
- Not securing a door, gate, or fence.
- Not warning visitors or guests that a dog is on the property and could be dangerous.
- Allowing a large or excitable dog to greet visitors and guests while unrestrained.
A negligence claim doesn’t need any proof that the dog was dangerous before. This means that victims who would previously not have had any remedy under vicious propensities can now pursue compensation. Crucially, victims of dog bites can pursue both angles when there is evidence for strict liability from vicious propensities and ordinary negligence.
Your Options If You Have Been Bitten by a Dog on Long Island
If you have been bitten or injured by a dog in Suffolk or Nassau County, Flanders v. Goodfellow expands the evidence that may support your claim. The Raimondo Law Firm is available to review your case and explore the potential for an ordinary negligence and/or strict liability claim against the owner.
We will identify which legal theories apply to your situation and gather the evidence needed to build the strongest possible case. Reach out to us for your free consultation at (631) 471-1222.
