Janet Olier v. Donna Bailey
2015 Miss. LEXIS 164, 164 So.3d 982 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An animal owner may be liable for injuries caused by one animal from a group if the owner knew or should have known that the group collectively exhibited dangerous propensities, making the injury reasonably foreseeable. This liability for animal attacks exists independently of premises liability and is analyzed under a 'totality of the circumstances' standard.
Facts:
- Janet Olier and Donna Bailey became acquainted through a gardening website and arranged for Olier to visit Bailey's home to view her plants.
- Bailey kept domestic geese in her yard, had a "Beware-Attack Geese" sign posted, and verbally warned Olier about them.
- When Olier first attempted to enter the yard alone to see a plant, the geese behaved aggressively, causing her to retreat back to the porch.
- Bailey then offered to accompany Olier into the yard, giving her a bamboo pole to "fend off" the birds and attempting to distract the geese herself.
- Despite Bailey's efforts, the geese again approached Olier aggressively, hissing and squawking.
- A goose nipped Olier in the crotch area, causing her to turn and flee.
- As she fled, Olier tripped over one of several five-gallon water buckets Bailey had placed along the porch as a barrier, fell, and broke her arm.
Procedural Posture:
- Janet Olier sued Donna Bailey in the County Court of Jackson County under theories of premises liability and the dangerous-propensity rule.
- Bailey filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court (County Court) granted summary judgment in favor of Bailey.
- Olier, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Jackson County Circuit Court.
- The Jackson County Circuit Court, as the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the summary judgment.
- Olier, as appellant, then filed the instant appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 an animal owner have a duty of care under the dangerous-propensity rule when a person is injured by an animal from a group, even if the specific animal that caused the injury had not previously exhibited a dangerous propensity, but the group as a whole was known by the owner to be aggressive?
Opinions:
Majority - Kitchens, J.
Yes. An animal owner can be held liable under the dangerous-propensity rule for an injury caused by one animal from a group, even without proof of that specific animal's prior dangerous acts, if the owner was on notice of the group's collective aggressive tendencies, making the injury foreseeable. The court reasoned that animal-owner liability is a tort distinct from premises liability, as animals are not a stationary 'condition of the land.' While Olier's premises liability claim fails because she was a licensee and Bailey's actions were not willful or wanton, her claim under the dangerous-propensity rule can proceed. The purpose of the rule is to establish foreseeability. Here, Bailey's actions—providing a pole for defense, attempting to act as a decoy, and witnessing the geese's initial aggression—create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she knew of the gaggle's dangerous propensity. When dealing with a group of animals, it is counterintuitive and unnecessary to require identification and proof of a dangerous history for the specific animal that attacked; what matters is the collective character of the group.
Dissenting - Dickinson, P.J.
No. The case should be analyzed exclusively under premises-liability law, not as a separate animal liability tort. The majority's decision creates a new, unsupported rule that wrongly separates injuries caused by animals from other dangerous conditions on a property. The geese are a condition on the premises, and as such, premises-liability classifications must apply. Under existing law, Olier was a licensee, and Bailey owed her only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury. Since Bailey's conduct did not meet this high standard, summary judgment in her favor was proper and should be affirmed.
Dissenting - Coleman, J.
No. Although a reasonable care standard should apply under the Hoffman exception to premises liability, the plaintiff failed to create an issue of fact that could establish liability. Even under a standard of ordinary negligence, Olier's claim fails for three reasons. First, there was no evidence that the specific goose that bit her had previously shown a dangerous propensity, as required by precedent like Poy. Second, the plaintiff failed to show that the goose's behavior was anything other than natural for its species. Third, the defendant did not possess superior knowledge of the danger; the plaintiff was equally aware of the geese's aggressive behavior, having already retreated from them once. Because knowledge was equal, the defendant cannot be held liable, and summary judgment was appropriate.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands Mississippi's 'dangerous-propensity' rule, extending it from individual animals to groups, packs, or 'gaggles.' The ruling establishes that an owner can be on notice of a collective danger, making an injury foreseeable even if the specific attacking animal had no personal history of aggression. Furthermore, the court carves out animal-owner liability as a tort separate from traditional premises liability, suggesting a visitor's status (licensee, invitee) may not be determinative for injuries caused by a landowner's animals. This precedent makes it easier for plaintiffs injured by an animal in a group setting to survive summary judgment and present their case to a jury based on the foreseeability of the attack.
Unlock the full brief for Janet Olier v. Donna Bailey