Woodbridge v. Marks
45 N.Y.S. 156, 17 A.D. 139 (1897)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of a known vicious dog kept for guarding property is not strictly liable for injuries it causes to a trespasser, provided the dog is properly confined and cautiously used within a private area of the owner's premises where a person is not invited or expected to be.
Facts:
- The defendant owned a summer residence that was closed and unoccupied at the time of the incident.
- The defendant procured and kept two dogs chained on the property for the purpose of guarding it, indicating knowledge of their vicious character.
- The dogs were chained in a narrow passageway in the back of the house, in a manner that prevented them from reaching any doors, stoops, or common pathways.
- The plaintiff entered the defendant's property at night, intending to find a man he believed was working in the barn.
- Claiming to be lost in the darkness, the plaintiff deviated from the driveway and cement walk, and proceeded through a young orchard into the rear passageway where the dogs were kept.
- While in this private rear passageway, one of the defendant's chained dogs attacked and severely injured the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court for personal injuries.
- A trial was held before a jury.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that if the defendant knew the dog was dangerous, the defendant was liable.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 owner of a known vicious dog, kept for guarding property and chained in a private rear area of the premises, maintain a nuisance or act negligently towards a person who is injured after trespassing into that confined area?
Opinions:
Majority - Parker, P. J.
No. The owner of a known vicious dog does not maintain a nuisance or act negligently when the dog is kept for protection, is properly confined to a private area of the property, and injures a person who trespasses into that specific area. The law permits a person to keep a dog for the necessary defense of their property and to use it cautiously for that purpose. While the owner of a vicious dog that is running at large may be held strictly liable, that rule does not extend to situations where the dog is confined and injures a trespasser who comes into its path. In this case, the dogs were securely chained in a space where no stranger was invited or could be reasonably expected to wander. The defendant's duty to protect others from the dogs did not extend to a trespasser in a private, non-public area of the property, similar to how an owner is not liable if a trespasser falls into an unguarded well in such a location. Therefore, the defendant's keeping of the dogs in this manner was neither a nuisance nor a negligent act as against this plaintiff.
Dissenting - Putnam, J.
Yes, this is a question for the jury. While the trial court's instruction implying absolute liability was incorrect, the appellate court should not grant final judgment for the defendant. When a person is injured by a known vicious dog, negligence on the part of the owner is presumed, and the owner bears the burden of proving they took proper precautions. Given that an innocent person could potentially wander onto the premises and get within reach of the animals, whether the dogs were 'properly confined' is a question of fact that should be submitted to a jury for determination on a new trial, rather than being decided as a matter of law by the court.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the general rule of strict liability for owners of known vicious animals. It establishes that the owner's duty of care is not absolute and is influenced by the status of the injured party and the circumstances of the injury. By distinguishing between a dog running at large and one securely confined for property protection, the court balances a landowner's right to defend their property with the public's safety. The ruling suggests that liability for dog bites on private property is not automatic, but requires a fact-specific inquiry into the reasonableness of the confinement and whether the injured party was lawfully on the premises.
Unlock the full brief for Woodbridge v. Marks