For years, New York dog-bite cases frequently turned on one difficult question: Did the owner know or have reason to know that the dog had vicious propensities?
If the answer was no, an injured person could face dismissal even when the owner arguably handled the animal carelessly. That changed in 2025.
In Flanders v. Goodfellow, New York’s highest court overturned the rule that had prevented ordinary negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals. An injured person may now pursue traditional strict liability based on known vicious propensities, an ordinary negligence claim based on unreasonable conduct, or both.
The change does not make dog owners automatically liable for every injury. It changes what an injured person is allowed to prove.
Table of Contents
The Old Rule Focused Heavily on the Dog’s History
New York still recognizes strict liability when an owner knew or should have known that a dog had vicious propensities.
A prior bite can provide powerful evidence, but New York law has never literally guaranteed every dog a “free bite.”
Other behavior may establish notice.
Evidence that a dog previously growled, snapped, bared its teeth, attacked, or displayed similar dangerous tendencies can potentially show that its owner knew or should have known of the risk.
On the other hand, ordinary canine behavior such as barking at strangers, pulling on a leash, or running around does not automatically prove vicious propensities.
That framework remains part of New York law after Flanders.
What changed is that it is no longer the only framework.
Flanders Restored an Ordinary Negligence Claim
The New York Court of Appeals decided Flanders v. Goodfellow on April 17, 2025.
The plaintiff was a postal carrier who was attacked while delivering a package. She alleged both strict liability and negligence.
The lower courts had dismissed the negligence claim because an earlier New York precedent, Bard v. Jahnke, had been understood to make strict liability the exclusive route for injuries caused by domestic animals.
The Court of Appeals rejected that restriction.
It held that a person injured by an animal now has two potential avenues:
The plaintiff can establish strict liability by showing that the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities.
Alternatively, the plaintiff can rely on ordinary negligence principles and attempt to show that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.
Both theories can also be asserted in the same case.
A Dog May Have No Prior Bite and Still Create a Negligence Issue
The practical importance of that change is easiest to see when there is no known attack history.
Imagine a large dog that has never bitten anyone. Its owner nevertheless opens the front door while the dog is visibly excited and unsecured, even though a delivery worker is standing immediately outside. The dog bolts through the doorway and knocks the visitor down.
Under the older, strict-liability-only framework, the absence of known vicious tendencies could be a major obstacle.
After Flanders, the conduct of the owner can receive separate scrutiny.
An investigation by a dog bite lawyer Long Island may therefore examine not only complaints and prior attacks but also what the owner was doing immediately before the incident, how the animal was restrained, what risks were reasonably foreseeable, and whether ordinary precautions could have prevented the injury.
That is a substantially broader factual inquiry.
Negligence Does Not Mean Automatic Liability
The change should not be exaggerated. New York did not adopt a rule making an owner responsible whenever a dog causes harm. A negligence claim still requires the familiar elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages.
The question becomes whether the defendant failed to exercise the level of care that was reasonable under the circumstances.
Different facts can produce different results. An owner who knowingly leaves a powerful dog loose while contractors repeatedly enter the property may present one set of circumstances. A normally calm dog that reacts in a completely unforeseeable way despite reasonable precautions may present another.
The ability to bring a negligence claim does not eliminate the plaintiff’s burden of proving it.
Long Island Courts Are Already Applying the New Rule
The impact of Flanders reached Long Island quickly.
In July 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department decided LaRocca v. Lauer, a dog-bite case originating in Suffolk County.
The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence theory under the older rule that strict liability was the exclusive basis for recovery.
By the time the appeal was decided, Flanders had changed New York law.
The Second Department sent the negligence issue back to the trial court so the parties could litigate it under the new standard.
That case is particularly significant for Long Island claims because Suffolk and Nassau Counties fall within the Second Department.
It demonstrates that Flanders is not merely an abstract statewide ruling. It has already changed the way dog-injury litigation proceeds in the appellate court governing Long Island.
Prior Behavior Still Matters
Although negligence is now available, evidence about the dog’s history remains highly valuable.
Prior incidents can still support a strict-liability theory.
A plaintiff may look for:
That evidence can show what the owner knew before the injury occurred.
A person recovering from an attack should also prioritize appropriate dog bite care, because treatment records can help document the nature, extent, and progression of the injuries.
The Negligence Claim Requires a Different Kind of Evidence
The new theory can make evidence unrelated to prior aggression more important.
Suppose the allegation is that an owner failed to secure a dog while guests were entering a home.
Relevant evidence could include photographs of gates or fences, security-camera footage, witness accounts, leash practices, instructions given to visitors, or testimony about where the dog was kept.
If the incident happened in an apartment building, questions about a landlord’s knowledge and control can create an additional layer of analysis.
New York courts in 2026 have already begun working through how Flanders affects claims involving property owners and landlords as well as animal owners.
The developing case law reinforces why factual details matter more now than a single question about whether the dog bit someone before.
Strict Liability May Still Be the Stronger Theory in Some Cases
The recognition of negligence does not make the traditional vicious-propensity claim obsolete.
When strong evidence shows that an owner knew the dog posed a danger, strict liability can remain highly significant.
For example, a documented previous attack followed by another similar incident presents a very different factual case from an animal with no concerning history.
The two theories can also overlap.
An owner might know that a dog previously lunged aggressively at visitors and then negligently leave the dog unsecured when another visitor arrives.
The same injury could potentially support both strict liability based on prior knowledge and negligence based on the owner’s conduct.
Preserving reports, witness information, photographs, and other evidence remains among the important legal steps after a serious attack.
The “One Bite Rule” Is Now an Even Less Accurate Shortcut
Calling New York a simple “one bite rule” state was always imperfect.A prior bite was never the only way to show vicious propensities.
After Flanders, the phrase is even less useful. New York now expressly recognizes two different questions.
First, did the owner know or have reason to know that the dog possessed dangerous tendencies? Second, regardless of such prior knowledge, did the owner act unreasonably under the circumstances and cause the injury?
A plaintiff does not automatically win merely because the second question can now be asked. But the absence of a documented previous bite no longer necessarily ends the case before the owner’s conduct is examined.
For Long Island dog-injury claims, that is a substantial change from the law that governed only a few years ago.
This article provides general information about New York dog-bite and animal-injury law and is not legal advice for an individual case.
