New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In Bard v. Jahnke, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a property owner could be held liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal—specifically, a dairy bull—under a common-law negligence theory. The court considered whether an owner could be held responsible for failing to warn or restrain an animal that, while not previously aggressive, belonged to a class known to be dangerous.
Background Facts
On September 27, 2001, Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, visited Hemlock Valley Farms, a dairy farm in Otsego County. He had been invited by another carpenter, John Timer, to assist with repairs to cow mattresses in the barn’s “low cow district.” Timer had previously worked on various farm tasks and was asked to do this job by one of the farm owners’ sons. Neither Timer nor Bard saw any animals when they walked through the barn that morning.
Bard began working around 8:30 a.m. and saw some cows enter the area while he was on the ground unbolting a mattress. Around 9:00 a.m., a bull—later identified as Fred—approached him from behind and “bellered” within a few feet. As Bard stood up, Fred charged, striking him in the chest and slamming him against the stall pipes. Bard crawled out of the barn, reached his truck, and eventually signaled for help. He sustained several injuries, including broken ribs and a liver laceration.
Fred, the bull, had been kept in the low cow district to breed cows that had not conceived through artificial insemination. The farm had used dairy bulls like Fred in this manner for years, and none had shown aggressive behavior. Fred had never previously injured or threatened anyone. He was not restrained by a cage or tether but had always been confined within the low cow district.
Bard and his wife sued both Jahnke and Timer, seeking damages under both strict liability and negligence theories.
Question Before the Court
The Court of Appeals was asked to decide whether Bard could recover damages from the farm owner, Jahnke, either by proving that the bull had known vicious propensities or by showing that Jahnke was negligent in failing to restrain or warn about the bull. Specifically, the court addressed whether New York should recognize a negligence cause of action against the owner of a domestic animal in the absence of evidence of prior vicious behavior.
Court’s Decision
The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the farm owner. It held that Bard could not recover under New York law unless he proved that the animal had known vicious propensities and that Jahnke knew or should have known about them. Because Fred had never injured or threatened anyone and had not displayed dangerous behavior before the incident, there was no basis for liability.
The Court declined to adopt a broader negligence-based standard proposed by Bard, which was based on sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Under those provisions, a person can be liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal if they fail to take reasonable precautions based on general knowledge of the animal’s class characteristics.
The Court rejected that theory, reaffirming that the only actionable theory for injuries caused by domestic animals in New York is strict liability based on prior knowledge of vicious behavior. The Court declined to hold that bulls as a class are inherently dangerous.
Discussion
This case reinforced a longstanding principle in New York: owners of domestic animals are only liable for injuries caused by those animals if they knew or should have known of the specific animal’s vicious tendencies. The court relied on its earlier decision in Collier v. Zambito, which involved a dog bite and also required proof of prior behavior that would alert the owner to possible danger.
Bard tried to introduce expert testimony that bulls—especially breeding bulls—are generally dangerous and should be restrained. He argued that even if Fred had not acted aggressively before, Jahnke should have known that Fred posed a risk. The court disagreed, stating that such reasoning would effectively create strict liability for certain breeds or classes of animals, which New York law does not support.
The court also declined to adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518, which many other states follow. That section allows for liability if a domestic animal causes injury and the owner fails to take reasonable care to prevent the harm, even if the animal did not previously show aggression. New York’s highest court explicitly rejected this standard, stating that strict liability under the vicious propensity rule is the only path for recovery.
A dissenting opinion argued that New York’s rule is outdated and out of line with how negligence is handled in other areas of tort law. The dissent noted that other jurisdictions have adopted the Restatement approach and that liability should apply if an owner fails to act reasonably, even if the animal had not previously attacked. The dissent raised concerns about fairness and predicted that New York’s rule would lead to unjust outcomes or force future courts to create exceptions.
Conclusion
The decision in Bard v. Jahnke clarified that New York limits liability for injuries caused by domestic animals to cases where the owner knew or should have known that the specific animal had dangerous tendencies. General knowledge that certain types of animals may be dangerous is not enough. In this case, because Fred the bull had not previously acted aggressively and the farm owner had no notice of any risk, the court found no liability.
This case highlights the challenges injured persons may face when pursuing claims related to animal attacks in New York. Unlike many other states, New York does not allow recovery under a general negligence theory. Injury victims must show that the animal involved had a known history of threatening or harmful behavior.