A Guide to Dog Bite Laws in New York
The law around dog bites in New York establishes that the injured victim is generally entitled to recover for any injuries sustained as a result of a dog bite. This recovery is not conditioned upon the establishment of fault. In other words, it does not matter whether or not the dog’s owner was negligent or violated any laws or ordinances respecting the keeping of dogs.
This dog-bite law in New York is known as "strict liability" and only applies to cases which involve dog bites. Generally speaking, if a victim is injured by being scratched, knocked over or otherwise injured by a dog but not bitten, the strict liability dog-bite statute does not apply. In such cases, the defendant dog owner is not subject to liability unless the plaintiff can establish that he or she was negligent. Additional defenses may also arise, such as the injured person having provoked the dog or having willingly participated in the injury-causing activity.
Under New York law, a victim who has been bitten by a dog must establish that the dog (actually) bit the victim. In doing so, the dog must have teeth marks, puncture wounds or actual breaking of the skin. Minor injuries and bruising which are not classified as "dog bites" likely will not be actionable under the strict liability law and will remain subject to traditional principles of negligence.
New York dog bite law applies strictly, with little or no exceptions. In order for a plaintiff to successfully recover for a dog bite under the New York strict liability statute, the plaintiff must show that: 1) the injury was a result of a dog bite; and 2) the defendant was the owner of the dog which bit the plaintiff. It appears that one other element exists: evidence of the dog’s dangerous or vicious propensities. However, under some New York case authority, that element appears to be in conflict with the statute as written. The exception outlined in the statute is that no damages shall be recoverable for injury inflicted by a dog upon any person who, at the time such injury was inflicted, was committing a trespass or other tort or whose conduct contributed to the injury .
A dog owner is generally responsible for the harm caused by his or her dog — even the first time — unless the injured party was taunting or teasing the dog, trespassing on the owner’s property at the time of the dog bite, or knowingly provoking the dog to injure him or her. This policy espoused by the law is designed to ensure that the public and not the owners of pets bear the loss.
In 2007, the New York State Legislature amended the language of the New York dog bite statute to impose strict liability upon any dog owner where whoever owns, possesses or harbors any dog which "bites a person…without provocation." Thus, absent injury caused by the fault of the injured party, a dog owner whose dog bites a person may be found liable for injuries in a court of law without the injured party having to prove that the dog owner was negligent in any respect.
As previously noted, however, there is an exception to this law. Since a court in New York is precluded by statute from imposing liability upon a dog’s owner for injuries inflicted by his or her pet due to 1) the injured party’s committing a trespass or other tort or 2) due to the express or implied consent of the injured person, New York Courts have held that implied consent has been given by a person bitten by a dog where the injured person is immediately or closely associated with the owner of the dog which attacked that person. Under these circumstances, it may be established that the injured party has freely associated himself or herself with the dog and as a result, a presumption of implied consent may be triggered.
New York courts have upheld the disallowance of a dog bite lawsuit if the injured party’s conduct could be deemed to be a violation of certain sections of the New York Agriculture and Markets Law, to wit: Sections 121 through 126. Certain exceptions exist, however, which are not applicable to this discussion.
New York’s new pet-bite statute, coming into effect in 1997, applies only to injuries inflicted by dogs. It does not apply to other animals and it does not apply to injuries sustained in a playground setting.
Consequences of a Dog Bite in NY
The legal ramifications of a dog bite vary in severity. If a person is bitten by a dog in New York, the owner may face a fine for not securing a rabies vaccination. However, should someone be bitten in the face and require extensive reconstructive surgery, the situation will result in an extremely high personal injury lawsuit that could even lead to the dog’s euthanasia.
Under New York State Agriculture and Markets Law § 121, dog owners can be charged with a $200 fine if a dog is not vaccinated for rabies and bites someone. A judge may also order the dog to be quarantined or euthanized if the owner does not want to pay the fine. In some cases, municipal courts have imposed jail time or probation on first time violators. But jail time or probation becomes a possibility for repeat offenders. Offenders may also be forced to pay for quarantining and destroying of the animal.
New York State dog bite laws are No Endorsement Laws, meaning they only apply to "substantial" injury to a third party. This refers to significant dog bite injuries, such as those to the face or neck. A person who is bitten and then requires reconstructive surgery may recover at least $50,000 in damages, plus any medical expenses that result. There are no ceiling damages for no endorcement cases. When a person must take off work to recover from their injuries, that cost will also add up as lost wages and is included in the person’s damage award. With so many costs for the lawsuit, filing it will cost the dog owner plenty of money that they had hoped to save.
When a dog inflicts severe face or neck injuries on a person, the dog owner will not only be responsible for substantial compensatory damages, such as expenses for hospital visits, surgeries, medication, therapy, reconstructive procedures, counseling related to the trauma, lost wages, and some pain and suffering, but will also be forced to pay punitive damages if the judge and jury deem it necessary. A dog bite that is so bad that the victim has permanent scars or disfigurement (physical damage that cannot be improved with surgery) will be deemed grave to the victim and that may increase the amount of damages received. The higher the compensatory damages, the more likely a judge and jury will agree to award punitive damages, which seek to punish a defendant for their actions.
In fatal dog bite cases, the dog owner will be forced to pay compensatory damages for medical costs for the treatment for the injuries that lead to death, loss of income that the deceased would have made for a certain period of time, and emotional distress. The family or estate of the deceased person can file for compensation for themselves. In order to receive damages from a dog bite death, there must be prior proof that the owner of the dog was negligent before, during, or after the event when the victim was bitten. Owners may be criminally prosecuted if they are negligent, which includes not vaccinating their dog and not helping a person who has been injured by the dog.
When does a Dog Bite Justify Euthanasia?
In New York, under certain circumstances the local board or government authority has to make a decision whether or not the dog should be euthanized.
Procedure
- The dog is impounded for a period of time not to exceed nine (9) days. This includes weekends and holidays.
- If the dog is healthy and the attack was an isolated incident the dog is set free.
- If the dog is healthy and the attack was NOT an isolated incident the local board or government task force must determine if the dog should be euthanized by having medical evidence in writing that the dog:
A. has a prior history of biting or attacking people or other animals and/or;
B. is a member of a breed known to be dangerous, including but not limited to "bull", pit bull and rottweiler breeds of dog and/or;
C. poses a threat to the public health, safety or general welfare; and/or
D. is not a good candidate for socialization and rehabilitation based on the dog’s response to qualified training and behavior professionals.
4. Regardless of the grounds for proposed euthanasia, the dog owner is notified of the situation by certified mail, return receipt requested, or in person by a member of the board or task force and is provided with a copy of the written findings upon request.
The Role of Animal Control & Health Authorities
Animal control and public health authorities have both been given the mandate to take action upon receiving a report of someone being bitten by a dog, or upon receiving a report of a dog being dangerous to human beings. In urban areas, the responsibility to act is more clear, as there is a myriad of sources from which dogs are produced (i.e., pet stores, breeders who can set up shop within villages, towns, or cities, etc) that can be shut down, as the consumption of such animals diminishes in size or count.
Failing to act upon a complaint of a dog being dangerous to a human being can result in personal liability for the public health agency worker whether or not he or she has the legal right to enter upon private property to impound an animal (provided that the complaint is made and kept in good faith). With respect to the euthanization of a dangerous or vicious dog, however, care should be taken to anticipate and guard against improper or inappropriate allegations being made, such as allegations that an untrained child provoked the dog by chasing or scaring it , held something over the dog’s head, pulled its tail or ear, or otherwise attempted to pet fun with or ride the dog. Failing to guard against such allegations can result in liability to the municipality, as well as claims by the dog’s owner, if the owner is in fact refusing to submit to a reasonable euthanization scheme. In this regard, an appropriate euthanization scheme is one that is written, dated, illustrates scientifically proven means of euthanization (i.e., sodium pentobarbital injection, euthanasia chamber using carbon dioxide), and clearly sets forth the need for euthanization based upon the veterinarian’s duly exhibited "unmistakable conviction that the animal is in irreparable pain or is a danger to human beings" (People v Clark, 187 Misc 2d 1 [appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 738] [emphasis supplied]). The purpose of requiring such a euthanization scheme is so that reasonable accommodation can be made for irreparable pain stemming from a life threatening, pregnancy related injury, as opposed to being caused by breed, lineage, ownership or size of the pit bull dog.
Rights and Responsibilities of Dog Owners
Chief among these is the right to complete and accurate notice and hearing before any euthanasia order is to be made. This means that the owner has the right not only to be heard at the hearing, but also to receive advance notice by personal service (hand delivery) or certified mail to appear in court for such hearing.
Moreover, the hearing must be held in the local criminal court with jurisdiction over the area where the alleged incident occurred. Upon conviction, a judge shall not only impose a sentence upon the dog owner, but also issues an order determining whether the dog in question is a dangerous dog and, should the court make such a determination, the order must further direct either: (1) the dog’s continue in_handler’s possession, or (2) that the dog be delivered to the custody of a designated person or agency for humane care; or (3) the immediate destruction of the dog.
At the time that the order is signed, the dog shall be delivered to the custody of the designated person or agency to be humanely cared for pending the court’s determination that the dangerous dog component of the case has been fully resolved. While the dog is being humanely cared for, the owner has the right to petition the same low criminal court for a return of the dog prior to a presentation of the dangerous dog issues. An example of the sort of situations in which the court may order a dog’s return to its owner would be if the court determined that the bite incident did not occur under circumstances falling under the definition of a "dangerous" dog in the first place.
Similar to the Department of Health Handling of Rabies Bite Cases discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the court’s signature is required on the order that triggers the dog’s transport to the designated person or agency for humane care and destruction of the dog. And should the humane care become contrary to the directive of the court, the owner has a right to move the court for a release of the dog to "a reasonable person." The "reasonable person" is usually a "foster keeper," who receives the animal until the case is resolved.
Because the law does not require that the same judge who presides over the rest of the dangerous dog case also preside over the hearing for the decision to destroy the dog, the hearing about whether to destroy the dog may be handled by a different low criminal court judge. While there are certainly DCA hearings that may involve animal bites, it is rare for the case to go before a judge for a determination of whether the dog will be destroyed. While these hearings are rare, they may occur in cases where the agency involved has "urged prosecution" of the owner.
Preventing Dog Bites & Practicing Responsible Dog Ownership
Preventive Strategies and Best Practices for Dog Owners: Training, Socialization and Supervision
Preventing dog bite incidents starts with responsible ownership. Educating the public on these issues is substantial, throughout millions of posts per year which help spread awareness on a variety of dog behavioral topics.
Canine training specialists and organizations have shared their insights on how to avoid rabies, basic theories behind canine behaviors and what to look for as warning signs for provocation related incidents.
Below are a few examples of the countless resources available for educating others on how to be more aware of their dog’s behaviors (as well as their own) and how to avoid dog bites:
- The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) explains that dog bite incidents are generally the result of an owner’s negligence or fault in some way for "failing to properly socialize or to train his or her dog."
- The website explains that socialization for puppies is an essential part of their upbringing, especially how important it is to place a puppy with other types and sizes of dogs and people .
- Noting that problems like aggression toward other incoming dogs or people can arise from that lack of socialization, the website remarked that this can lead to them being territorial, sometimes resulting in severe attacks.
- Moreover, it has been reported that there could be 800,000 dog injured every year that actually require medical care, approximately 334,000 victims who are bitten and require medical attention and about 15 to 20 deaths a year from dog bites.
- A study completed by the CDC noted that "most dog bite victims in the United States are children and that over half of dog bite injuries occur in children ages 5 to 9 years." Before dogs engage with human beings — children specifically — it is best to train a dog properly and watch closely over the potential interactions.
As much of an enjoyable companion as dogs can be, owning one comes with a heavy responsibility for their owners, and owners must engage in the basic training and supervision required to keep their pets and the surrounding community safe.
