Petrone v. Fernandez

In Petrone v. Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, (2009) the plaintiff was injured while fleeing an unleashed, pursuing rottweiler. Plaintiff sought to impose liability due to the dog owner's violation of a local leash law. Judge Read instructed: "When harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner's liability is determined solely by application of the rule articulated in Collier . . . ie., the rule of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities . . .the strict liability involved in Collier is the only kind of liability the owner of a domestic animal may face, that, in other words, there is no such thing as negligence liability where harm done by domestic animals is concerned . . .Here, defendant's violation of the local law is irrelevant because such a violation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is no longer a basis for imposing liability after Colliver and Bard. (12 NY3d at 550.) The Court of Appeals, in reversing, held that liability of an owner is determined solely by application of the above rule, and emphasized that the cause of action is not based on a theory of negligence but on a rule of strict liability. Rejected as irrelevant was the plaintiff's claim that negligence should be applied where an owner violates a local leash law. (12 NY3d at 550.) The Court held that "When harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner's liability is determined solely by application of the rule of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have know of the animal's vicious propensities. The Court further stated that "A Defendant's violation of a local leash law is irrelevant in a claim of liability for harm caused by a domestic animal because such a violation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is not longer a basis for imposing liability."