Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis
2015 WL 3534886, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 445, 34 N.E.3d 264 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Owners of domestic animals are liable for injuries caused by their animal only if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities; strict liability is not imposed unless the animal is wild.
Facts:
- On April 19, 2011, eleven-year-old Jake Gruber was a participant at Flat Rock River YMCA Camp, where his mother, Jill Sherman, was a chaperone.
- Marcus Toidolt, a camp naturalist, owned a pig that lived on the YMCA’s premises for nine months of the year; Marcus had owned the pig for six years, and it had never injured anyone or exhibited any dangerous propensities.
- Marcus took a group of twelve children, including Jake, into the pig’s pen, which had bars the pig could stick its nose through, to watch the pig eat and pet it.
- After the pig ate, Marcus led the children, including Jake, out of the pen and locked the gate.
- While Jake was standing less than an arm’s length from the pen, not attempting to feed or pet the pig, the pig lunged, stuck its head between the bars, and grabbed Jake’s hand, causing injuries.
- The pig did not show any signs of agitation or aggression on the day of the incident.
- Jake was taken to the emergency room for his hand injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Nearly two years after the incident, Jake Gruber and his mother, Jill Sherman (the plaintiffs), filed a complaint against YMCA of Greater Indianapolis, Ruth Tilly YMCA Outdoor Center, and Flat Rock River YMCA Resident Camp (the YMCA defendants) in an unspecified trial court, alleging negligence.
- The YMCA defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, submitting evidence including an affidavit from the pig's owner.
- The plaintiffs filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, designating their complaint and interrogatory answers.
- After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the YMCA defendants, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the pig's dangerous propensities.
- Jake Gruber and Jill Sherman (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the established Indiana common law rule, which requires an owner to know or have reason to know of a domestic animal's dangerous propensities for liability, apply to all domestic animals, or should a strict liability standard be adopted for domestic animals other than cats and dogs?
Opinions:
Majority - Vaidik, Chief Judge
No, the established Indiana common law rule, which requires an owner to know or have reason to know of a domestic animal's dangerous propensities for liability, applies to all domestic animals, and the court declines to adopt a strict liability standard for domestic animals other than cats and dogs. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, citing Indiana Supreme Court precedent, specifically Poznanski ex rel. Poznanski v. Horvath, which makes clear that owners of domestic animals are liable for harm only if they know or have reason to know of the animal's dangerous propensities. This rule distinguishes domestic animals from wild animals, for which strict liability is imposed. The court noted that the plaintiffs conceded pigs are domestic animals and failed to provide evidence that this particular pig had dangerous propensities or that the breed of swine generally exhibits dangerous propensities like biting. The designated evidence showed the pig had never injured anyone in six years. The court found no convincing reason to alter the standard and impose strict liability on owners of domestic animals that are not cats or dogs, as existing Supreme Court precedent clearly applies the general rule to all domestic animals, not just cats and dogs, as further supported by Einhorn v. Johnson (regarding horses).
Analysis:
This case reinforces Indiana's adherence to the 'one bite rule' for domestic animals, requiring proof of an owner's actual or constructive knowledge of an animal's dangerous propensities before liability can be imposed. It explicitly rejects a proposed expansion of strict liability beyond wild animals or specific statutory exceptions, emphasizing that the classification of an animal as 'domestic' dictates the liability standard, regardless of its size or perceived risk. This decision significantly limits claims for injuries from domestic animals by placing a substantial burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate prior knowledge of the animal's specific dangerous tendencies or a known dangerous propensity of the animal's class.
