Grillo v Williamsh, 2010 NY Slip Op 02290 (4th Dept. 2010)
The Court denied a motion for summary judgment in a strict-liability dog-bite case. I dislike the result, but found the court’s recitation of the facts intriguing:
Even in the absence of evidence of a prior bite, however, a triable issue of fact may be raised with respect to defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities by evidence of behavior that “reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” (Collier, 1 NY3d at 447). “Such behaviors can include the animal being territorial, aggressively barking when [his or] her area [is] invaded, attacking another animal, growling and biting at another dog” and jumping on individuals (Morse v Colombo, 8 AD3d 808, 809; see Calabro v Bennett, 291 AD2d 616; Lagoda v Dorr, 28 AD2d 208, 209). Here, defendants submitted evidence that they knew their dog was territorial inasmuch as the dog had aggressively barked and growled at strangers in their presence. Defendants also submitted evidence that they were aware that the dog was “moody” and “protective” of the women in the household and that the dog tended to bark or growl if a man was too close to one of the women.
Two questions: 1) Isn’t this why people have dogs; and 2) Do you know anybody like this?
