McCarthy v. Croker
1976 Wyo. LEXIS 189, 549 p.2d 323 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To hold a dog owner liable for a bite, the plaintiff must prove the owner had scienter, meaning knowledge of the dog's specific vicious propensity to cause the type of harm inflicted, and knowledge of a propensity to attack other animals is not sufficient to establish knowledge of a propensity to attack humans.
Facts:
- The Crokers owned a residence in a rural area and had two dogs on their property.
- McCarthy, an insurance agent who serviced policies for the Crokers, visited their residence on September 18, 1974.
- The Crokers were not home when McCarthy arrived and parked in the driveway.
- As McCarthy walked from his car to the porch, he was bitten by one of the Crokers' dogs, which he had not previously seen.
- Prior to this incident, a neighbor, Cox, had informed Mr. Croker that the dogs had chased, barked at, and nipped his horses.
- The same dog had also growled and snapped at Cox on a separate occasion, but Cox never communicated this to the Crokers.
- In a phone call after the incident, Mr. Croker told McCarthy he was glad to know the dog would 'take care of the premises.'
Procedural Posture:
- McCarthy (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the Crokers (defendants) in a state trial court.
- The complaint alleged that the Crokers wrongfully kept a dog they knew to be vicious and accustomed to biting humans.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants' knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensity.
- McCarthy (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 owner's knowledge that their dog has chased, barked at, and nipped other animals constitute sufficient knowledge of a vicious propensity to attack humans for the purpose of establishing liability for a dog bite?
Opinions:
Majority - Guthrie, Chief Justice
No. An owner's knowledge that their dog is aggressive towards other animals does not, by itself, serve as notice that the dog has a vicious propensity to attack humans. To satisfy the scienter requirement for liability, the owner's knowledge must be of the particular propensity that caused the injury. The court reasoned that the evidence presented—that the dog chased and nipped at horses—only established knowledge of a propensity to harass other animals, not humans. Citing precedent from other jurisdictions, the court affirmed the principle that notice of ferociousness toward animals is not equivalent to notice of ferociousness toward people. Furthermore, Mr. Croker's isolated comment about the dog 'taking care of the premises' was deemed insufficient, without more context, to infer that he knew the dog was dangerous to people.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law scienter doctrine, often called the 'one bite rule,' in animal liability cases. It clarifies that the required knowledge must be specific to the type of harm caused, establishing a clear distinction between a dog's aggression towards animals and its potential danger to humans. This ruling places a significant evidentiary burden on plaintiffs, requiring them to produce direct or strong circumstantial evidence that the owner knew of the animal's specific dangerous tendency towards people. Consequently, it makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in dog bite cases where the dog's prior aggressive acts were directed exclusively at other animals.
