In Collier v. Zambito, the New York Court of Appeals examined whether the owners of a family dog could be held liable for a bite injury to a child who had been invited into their home. The court focused on whether the dog showed any prior signs of vicious behavior and whether the owners had notice of such behavior.
Background Facts
On December 31, 1998, 12-year-old Matthew Collier was visiting the home of Charles and Mary Zambito. Matthew had been there before to visit their son. The Zambitos owned a mixed breed dog named Cecil. The family typically confined Cecil to the kitchen, especially when visitors were present, because the dog would bark. On the night of the incident, Matthew went downstairs to use the bathroom. When he exited the bathroom, Mrs. Zambito invited him to approach Cecil, who was on a leash.
Mrs. Zambito told Matthew that the dog knew him and encouraged him to let the dog smell him. As Matthew did so, Cecil lunged forward and bit him in the face. The injury was unprovoked. No one disputed that fact. There was also no record of Cecil ever having bitten or attacked anyone before.
Matthew’s mother filed a lawsuit against the Zambitos, alleging negligence and seeking compensation for her son’s injuries. The Zambitos moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence the dog had any vicious propensities or that they had notice of any such behavior. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Zambitos had implied knowledge of Cecil’s behavior by confining him when guests were present.
Question Before the Court
Whether the Zambitos could be held liable for the dog bite injury under New York law, which requires proof that a dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known about them.
Court’s Decision
The court ruled in favor of the Zambitos and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the plaintiff did not present evidence sufficient to raise a factual issue about whether the dog had known vicious propensities. The court explained that liability under New York law depends on whether a dog has behaved in a way that would have alerted the owner to the risk, such as previous aggressive conduct like growling, snapping, or other threatening behavior.
The court noted that there was no evidence of such behavior. The dog had never bitten anyone before. He was kept in the kitchen not because he was dangerous, but because he barked and got excited when visitors came to the home. The court found that barking and running around are normal dog behaviors and do not indicate a risk of attack. The plaintiff’s evidence did not support a claim of prior knowledge, so the court found no basis for liability.
Discussion
Under New York law, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by a dog only if the owner knew or should have known that the dog had a tendency to be dangerous. This is often referred to as the “vicious propensity” rule. Courts have consistently required some prior behavior that shows the dog might harm others. This can include previous bites, growling, lunging, or other aggressive behavior. Mere ownership of a dog or general knowledge that dogs can bite is not enough.
In Collier, the dog had no history of aggression. Witnesses said he was energetic and barked, but there was no evidence of him acting in a threatening or violent manner. The plaintiff argued that the act of confining Cecil behind a gate in the kitchen suggested that the owners were aware of some risk. The court rejected that argument, stating that confinement alone is not proof of viciousness, especially when the reason for it is simply barking or excitement.
The court also made clear that liability in dog bite cases is strict, but only if the threshold test of prior knowledge of dangerous behavior is met. Without that, the court will not impose liability, even when a bite results in injury.
One judge dissented. The dissent argued that a jury could have found that the Zambitos were aware of a potential danger. The dog was kept from visitors and had barked at Matthew before the bite. The dissent believed that the combination of the dog’s behavior and the owners’ actions created an issue that should have been decided by a jury.
However, the majority rejected that approach, holding that speculation was not enough. The court emphasized that the law requires actual or constructive knowledge based on prior behavior that indicates a real risk. In this case, such proof was lacking.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The ruling confirmed that in New York, a dog owner cannot be held liable for a bite unless the owner knew or should have known that the dog had a tendency to be dangerous. Normal behavior like barking or running around is not enough to support liability.