For nearly two decades, New Yorkers injured by dog attacks carried a heavier burden than victims in most of the country. That changed on April 17, 2025, when the state’s highest court issued a unanimous ruling in Flanders v. Goodfellow. The decision overturned a 2006 case that denied victims the right to sue for negligence.
At last, New York residents can now pursue compensation for dog bite injuries through two legal avenues: the centuries-old ‘’one bite rule’’ and claims based on negligence. The decision was long overdue. In 2006, Bard v. Jahnke stripped negligence out of animal liability law. The court held that an owner could only be responsible if a dog or other animal had previously shown dangerous behavior and if the owner knew about it.
A carpenter mauled by a breeding bull was left with nothing because the bull had never injured anyone before. From that moment forward, New York stood alone as the only state to reject negligence outright.
Why the One Bite Rule Was Never Enough
The one bite rule traces back to English common law and even biblical passages. It means an owner escapes liability unless a dog has attacked before and the owner was aware of the risk. The principle lingered in New York even as most states modernized their laws. Courts in Georgia and elsewhere made the obvious point: a dog should not be entitled to a first attack any more than a person is entitled to a first violent act.
New York’s strict adherence to this old standard left over 34,000 of its dog bite victims at the mercy of outdated reasoning. They had to prove both prior aggression and owner knowledge, which is an uphill climb in many cases. The legal roadblock discouraged accountability and punished victims for the absence of earlier attacks.
The Flanders Case
The facts behind Flanders v. Goodfellow show why the Bard ruling could no longer stand. Postal carrier Rebecca Flanders was attacked by a large dog while delivering a package. The bite tore muscle in her shoulder, required surgeries, and left permanent scars.
Two postal workers had already described the animal as dangerously aggressive, slamming against windows and baring its teeth. Yet because of Bard, her initial claims for negligence were dismissed.
The Court of Appeals, which was then in the process of selecting a chief judge from its nominees, stepped in. It ruled that the dog’s history raised enough questions for a jury to decide if the Goodfellows knew it was unsafe.
More importantly, the Court threw out Bard’s prohibition on negligence suits. Citing fairness and the need for laws to reflect modern life, the judges unanimously reinstated negligence as a valid theory of liability. Victims can now work with experienced lawyers for dog bite claims to get the justice they deserve.
The Road Ahead
Flanders v. Goodfellow was a breakthrough, but it only delivered two-thirds of the justice that other states provide. New York should not be left behind again. A state known for leadership in so many areas must extend that same vision to victims of dog attacks. The courts have done their part. Now, it is up to the legislature to finish the job and pass a statute that reflects today’s standards of personal responsibility and public safety.
Leave a Reply