Nardi v. Gonzalez
630 NYS2d 215, 630 N.Y.S.2d 215, 165 Misc. 2d 336 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a domestic animal who knows or should know of the animal's vicious propensities is held strictly liable for the harm the animal causes, regardless of any measures the owner took to confine it.
Facts:
- Maureen Gonzalez owned a 110-pound German Shepherd named Ace.
- Dusolina and Alfred Nardi, Gonzalez's neighbors, owned two small Bichon Frises named Bianca and Pepe.
- On March 24, 1993, Gonzalez's dog Ace ran loose onto the Nardis' property and viciously attacked Bianca, causing severe injuries.
- On June 16, 1994, Ace again entered the Nardis' property and attacked Bianca a second time.
- Following these attacks, Gonzalez constructed a fence to enclose Ace.
- On February 4, 1995, Ace escaped from the fenced enclosure, went to the Nardis' property, and viciously attacked and mauled Pepe.
Procedural Posture:
- Following two attacks on their dog Bianca by Gonzalez's dog Ace, the Nardis filed a lawsuit against Gonzalez.
- After a trial in that first case, the court found Gonzalez liable and awarded the Nardis $524 in damages.
- After Ace subsequently attacked the Nardis' other dog, Pepe, the Nardis filed the present lawsuit against Gonzalez in the City Court of Yonkers (a trial court) seeking damages for this third attack.
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 who knows their dog has vicious propensities, evidenced by prior adjudicated attacks, become strictly liable for subsequent injuries caused by that dog, regardless of efforts made to restrain it?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas A. Dickerson
Yes. An owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog if they have knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities, and liability is not dependent on proof of negligence in how the animal was kept or confined. The court reasoned that the 'gravamen of the offense' is the act of keeping an animal with known vicious propensities. Here, Gonzalez had clear knowledge of Ace's dangerous nature because of the two prior attacks on Bianca, for which a court had already found her liable. The fact that she later built a fence is irrelevant to the question of strict liability because the harm occurred after she knowingly kept a dangerous dog. Because all elements of a strict liability cause of action were met, Gonzalez is liable for compensatory and punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the strict liability doctrine in New York for injuries caused by domestic animals. It emphasizes that once an owner has knowledge of an animal's vicious propensities, liability becomes absolute, and any subsequent efforts to control the animal, such as building a fence, do not serve as a defense. The ruling underscores that the core of the tort is not the owner's negligence but the knowing possession of a dangerous animal. The award of punitive damages further signals that courts may view the continued harboring of such an animal as morally culpable conduct justifying punishment beyond mere compensation.
