Flanders v. Goodfellow: One Year Later, How the 2025 New York Court of Appeals Ruling Is Reshaping Dog-Bite Litigation

Flanders v Goodfellow, 44 NY3d 57, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 (Ct App April 17, 2025), overruled Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592 (2006), to the extent Bard barred a common-law negligence claim against the owner of a domestic animal. A dog-bite plaintiff in New York may now proceed in strict liability, in ordinary negligence, or both. This post is the case-law update; the practitioner guide is the cornerstone below.

Cornerstone: this post is a case-update piece on Flanders v Goodfellow. For the practitioner guide covering the two theories of liability, the evidence, Long Island leash ordinances and case evaluation, see New York Dog-Bite Law After Flanders v. Goodfellow: The Practitioner Guide.

If you were injured by a dog in New York, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Flanders v Goodfellow, decided April 17, 2025, changed the claims available to you. The Court overruled Bard v Jahnke “to the extent that it bars negligence liability for harm caused by domestic animals.” Strict liability remains what it was. A negligence claim, which Bard had foreclosed for nineteen years, is available again.

The Rule Before Flanders: Strict Liability, Not “One Free Bite”

The phrase “one free bite” was a label, and it misdescribed the rule. Before April 17, 2025, under Bard v Jahnke, “when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule articulated in Collier,” meaning strict liability where the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities. The Court of Appeals had confirmed that “negligence is no longer a basis for imposing liability after Bard” (Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550 (2009), as quoted in Flanders).

That strict liability rule never required a prior bite. Knowledge of vicious propensities “may of course be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice,” and a triable issue of fact “might be raised, even in the absence of proof that the dog had actually bitten someone, by evidence that it had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth” (Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 446-447 (2004), as quoted in Flanders). A vicious propensity includes “any behavior that reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” (Hastings v Sauve, 21 NY3d 122, 125 (2013), quoting Bard, as quoted in Flanders).

Here is what Bard did bar. An owner who did not know, and had no reason to know, of a vicious propensity could not be sued for careless handling of the animal, however careless. The Court described the consequence in its own words: foreclosing negligence liability “shifts both the burden of due care and cost of injuries away from owners of domestic animals to parties injured by those animals,” and “gives owners of domestic animals little reason to familiarize themselves with any potential proclivities that might lead the animal to cause harm.”

How Flanders v. Goodfellow Changed the Law

Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was delivering a package to the Goodfellows’ porch on December 8, 2018. The mailbox was missing. She had seen no warning about a dangerous dog at the post office, on the carriers’ scanner, or on the property. Stephen Goodfellow opened the door; a large dog approached from inside, slipped past him through the open door, lunged at her neck, and bit her shoulder. The bite caused a “snap tear” in her shoulder muscle that required multiple surgeries and left permanent scarring.

Two other postal carriers gave affidavits that the dog, when they approached the house, barked, snarled, growled, bared its teeth, and slammed into the window glass “as though it was trying to get through and attack.” The Goodfellows said they had never seen the dog growl or bare its teeth and that no one had complained. The record also showed that the dog “yank[ed] people around” on a leash, once dragged one owner to the ground, had a “scuffle” with another dog at its trainer’s, and did not interact with strangers because strangers were not allowed in the house.

Supreme Court, Onondaga County, granted the Goodfellows summary judgment on both causes of action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed (215 AD3d 1248 (4th Dept 2023)). The Court of Appeals reversed and denied the motion. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro and Troutman concurred in Judge Halligan’s opinion.

The Court held three things.

First, on strict liability, the affidavits, the leash incidents, the fight at the trainer’s, and the unexplained practice of keeping strangers out of the house created “a triable issue of fact as to whether the Goodfellows should have known that the dog’s behavior ‘reflect[ed] a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm.’” The Goodfellows’ denial of knowledge “merely presents questions of credibility.” The strict liability claim was reinstated.

Second, on negligence, the Court overruled Bard: “to the extent we previously held that a plaintiff may not assert a common-law negligence cause of action against the owner of a domestic animal for harms caused by that animal, we now overrule that precedent.” The Court found Bard “in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair,” and said its bright-line rule “has been muddied by various carve-outs” (Hastings v Sauve for straying farm animals; Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, 35 NY3d 541 (2020), for veterinary clinics). The Court also said Bard “made New York an outlier,” and quoted the Doerr v Goldsmith dissent’s count that as of 2015 “some 36 states expressly recognize[d] negligence as a distinct, alternative theory for animal-induced injuries.”

Third, the Court described the rule going forward: “there is a two-pronged approach to liability for harms caused by animals, as set forth in sections 509 and 518 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.” The negligence claim was not decided. The Court sent it back “to afford the parties a full opportunity to litigate whether the evidence adduced in the record could support Flanders’s negligence cause of action, and to allow Supreme Court to decide in the first instance whether it may proceed.”

What the New Standard Means

A plaintiff injured by a domestic animal in New York now “has a choice,” in the Court’s words.

1. Strict liability. “If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable.”
2. Ordinary negligence. “Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused their injury.”

“Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability, as Flanders chose to do.” The negligence standard is the general one the Court quoted from Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 341 (1928): “Negligence is the absence of care, according to the circumstances.”

Before vs. After Flanders v. Goodfellow: Recovery Pathway Comparison

The practical change is on the threshold question of whether a dog-bite victim has a claim at all. Only what the opinion states appears in this table.

Question	Before April 17, 2025 (Bard)	After Flanders
Owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities	Strict liability (Collier)	Unchanged: strict liability
Owner did not know and had no reason to know; owner careless in handling the dog	No claim: negligence barred (Bard; Petrone)	Negligence claim available: the plaintiff may prove the owner “failed to exercise due care under the circumstances”
Prior bite required for strict liability	Never required; evidence the dog was known to growl, snap or bare its teeth could raise a triable issue (Collier)	Unchanged
Both theories in one complaint	Negligence cause of action dismissed	Both may be pleaded; Flanders pleaded both
Damages	Ordinary personal injury damages	Ordinary personal injury damages on either theory; the opinion does not divide damages by theory

The bottom line is this. New York moved from a rule under which the owner’s liability was “determined solely” by the strict liability rule to a two-pronged approach. Strict liability is unchanged, and it is not limited to medical expenses; nothing in the opinion limits either theory to particular damages. What the earlier version of this article called “medical costs only” has no basis in the opinion.

Examples of Negligence in Dog Bite Cases

The opinion did not decide whether the Goodfellows were negligent; that question went back to Supreme Court. The record the Court described shows the kind of facts a negligence claim is built from:

• No “beware of dog” sign on the property, and no dangerous-dog warning at the post office or on the carriers’ scanner.
• The owner opened the door to a stranger while a 70-pound dog approached from inside, and the dog slipped past him.
• The dog pulled people around on a leash and once dragged one of its owners to the ground.
• Strangers were kept out of the house, without an explanation of whether concern about the dog was the reason.
• Other carriers had seen the dog bark, snarl, growl, bare its teeth and slam into the window when they approached.

Whether a violation of a local leash or restraint ordinance is negligence in itself is a question the opinion does not address. Such a violation is evidence a jury may weigh in deciding whether the owner exercised due care under the circumstances, and the local code answers what the ordinance required.

Impact on Different Types of Dog Bite Cases

The negligence theory is available to any plaintiff injured by a domestic animal, whatever the plaintiff’s status. The differences below are about the deadlines and the parallel claims, not about the theory.

Construction, Delivery and Postal Workers

The Flanders plaintiff was a postal carrier at work. A worker bitten on the job has two claims, handled together. The workers’ compensation claim against the employer requires written notice of the injury to the employer within thirty days after the accident (Workers’ Compensation Law § 18). Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(1) lets the injured employee “take such compensation and medical benefits” and also “pursue his remedy against such other,” meaning the dog owner, subject to the carrier’s lien on the recovery. The Court reinstated both of Ms. Flanders’s claims against the owners.

Children and Dog Bite Injuries

A child bitten by a dog with no prior bite history may now proceed on negligence as well as strict liability, on the same terms as an adult; the opinion sets no separate standard for child victims. The limitations period is extended: if the injured person was under a disability because of infancy when the claim accrued, CPLR 208(a) extends the time to three years after the disability ceases. Whether the owner failed to exercise due care with a child present is decided on the circumstances, as Palsgraf frames the question.

Visitors and Guests

On the owner’s property, the questions are what the owner knew, whether visitors were warned, and how the dog was confined. Flanders itself involved a bite on the owner’s porch, with no sign and no warning. A guest or service provider lawfully on the property may plead strict liability if the owner knew or should have known of a vicious propensity, negligence if the owner failed to exercise due care under the circumstances, or both.

Common Dog Bite Injuries and Compensation

Dog bites cause lacerations and puncture wounds, nerve damage, fractures, facial injuries, scarring and disfigurement, infection, and psychological injury. Ms. Flanders’s injury illustrates the categories: a shoulder bite that required multiple surgeries and left permanent scarring.

The damages are the ordinary damages of a personal injury action, on either theory: medical expenses, past and future; lost earnings and reduced earning capacity; and pain and suffering, including scarring and disfigurement and the psychological effects of the attack. New York does not cap those damages by statute. Under CPLR 1411(a) the award is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s own culpable conduct, if any; provocation of the dog goes to that question. No settlement range is quoted here, because the value depends on the injury, the proof and the available insurance.

What Dog Owners Need to Know

The Court explained why Bard was abandoned in terms that tell an owner what the law now expects. Under Bard, the rule gave “owners of domestic animals little reason to familiarize themselves with any potential proclivities that might lead the animal to cause harm, and in turn, to take reasonable steps to prevent any harm that may result.” Under Flanders, an owner who knew or should have known of a vicious propensity is strictly liable, and an owner who failed to exercise due care under the circumstances is liable in negligence.

• Follow the local leash and restraint ordinance; a violation is evidence of a failure of due care.
• Secure gates and fences, and control the door when a stranger is on the step.
• Treat growling, snapping and baring teeth as notice; those are the behaviors the Court of Appeals names as evidence of a vicious propensity.
• Warn visitors, in writing on the property and in person.

A dog’s lack of bite history is not a defense to either theory. It never was a defense to strict liability, and after April 17, 2025 it is not a defense to negligence.

Steps to Take After a Dog Bite in New York

If you were injured in a dog attack anywhere in New York State, including Long Island, Nassau County, or Suffolk County, take these steps.

1. Get medical care the same day and follow the treatment plan; the records document the injury.
2. Report the incident to animal control or the police, and get a copy of the report.
3. Photograph the injuries, the scene, and the dog, if that can be done safely.
4. Get the name and telephone number of every witness.
5. Keep every medical record and bill, and write down what the owner said about the dog.
6. Note the deadlines. A personal injury action must be commenced within three years under CPLR 214(5). If the dog belonged to a city, county, town, village or school district, a notice of claim must be served within ninety days after the claim arises (General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a)) and the action commenced within one year and ninety days (General Municipal Law § 50-i(1)). If you were bitten at work, give your employer written notice within thirty days (Workers’ Compensation Law § 18).
7. Talk to a personal injury attorney early, while the witnesses and the animal control records can still be found.

The Importance of Acting Quickly

The limitations period is three years from the bite under CPLR 214(5), on either theory, subject to the infancy extension in CPLR 208(a) and the shorter municipal periods above. Evidence is the reason to move sooner: the dog’s history lives in the memories of neighbors, mail carriers and delivery drivers, in animal control files, and in the owner’s own statements, and each of those is harder to reach with time. Because Flanders applied its rule to a bite that occurred on December 8, 2018, a person bitten before April 17, 2025 who is still within the limitations period should have counsel evaluate both theories.

Why Choose an Experienced Dog Bite Attorney

A negligence claim under Flanders is built on facts about the owner, not only about the dog. Proving it means finding what the owner knew and when, what warnings existed, how the dog was restrained and confined, what the local ordinance required, who saw the dog before the bite, and what the animal control file shows. A strict liability claim turns on the growl, snap and bared-teeth evidence the Court of Appeals describes. Counsel who has pleaded both theories since April 17, 2025 will know which facts each one needs.

What Flanders Settled and What It Left Open

Flanders settled that a common-law negligence claim lies against the owner of a domestic animal in New York, and that the strict liability rule of Collier is unchanged. It left open whether the Goodfellows were negligent on that record, which Supreme Court was directed to decide in the first instance. It did not address leash ordinances, negligence per se, or any category of damages.

If you were injured in a dog attack, the personal injury team at the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum can review the facts under both theories and tell you which the record supports. Contact the office for a free consultation.

The negligence standard the opinion quotes, “the absence of care, according to the circumstances,” is the same general standard applied to falls on a property owner’s premises; the Long Island slip and fall attorney page explains how notice is proven in those cases.

Related Reading

• Mental Health Damages in Personal Injury Claims: Long Island’s Growing Recognition in 2026: the psychological injuries that can follow a dog attack, and how they are proven.
• New York’s No-Fault Reform 2026: What the Enacted Law Means for Concussion and TBI Claims: the serious injury threshold as amended May 26, 2026, which applies to motor vehicle claims and not to dog-bite claims.
• MTA Personal Injury Lawsuits in 2026: Why Transit Injury Claims Are Rising and What Passengers Need to Know: notice of claim rules for public defendants, which also govern a bite by a dog owned by a municipality.

Related Practice Areas

• New York Dog-Bite Law After Flanders v. Goodfellow: The Practitioner Guide: the cornerstone.

• Long Island Dog Bite Attorney

• Long Island Premises Liability Attorney

• FAQ

• Legal Encyclopedia

Authoritative External Resources

• Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 (official reporter): the opinion as published by the New York State Law Reporting Bureau.
• New York State Senate, Consolidated Laws: official text of the CPLR, the General Municipal Law and the Workers’ Compensation Law.

---

Free Consultation: Talk to a New York Attorney

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has recovered more than $100 million for clients across personal injury, employment, and no-fault matters since 2002. We work on contingency, with no fee unless we win, and the initial consultation is free.

• Call (516) 750-0595 (Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm; 24/7 emergency line)
• Use the secure online contact form

The firm is licensed in New York State only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice; everything is provided for informational purposes.

Last reviewed: September 2026.