Aereo TV Receives Little Support from Supreme Court Justices in Copyright Case
Aereo TV Receives Little Support from Supreme Court Justices in Copyri...
Samsung Argues over Inflated Patent Damages
Samsung Argues over Inflated Patent Damages
Former Deutsche Bank Salesman Admitted to Bribery
Former Deutsche Bank Salesman Admitted to Bribery
U.S. High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban
U.S. High Court Upholds Michigan Affirmative Action Ban
Your profile matches an open legal position. Apply now!
Job Listings

Cyclist Injured by Dog Cannot Sue Owner, though Dog Moved on Owner’s Command

On Tuesday, the Appellate Division, First Department ruled that a man injured while cycling in Central Park, because his bicycle struck an unleashed dog, will not be able to sue the dog’s owner for negligence. And this is despite the fact that the owner commanded the dog to cross the path.

 

The court said in a 4-1 decision that Julie Smith, the owner of the dog, and her boyfriend Daniel Goldsmith, could not be held liable for the injuries of the cycler Wolfgang Doerr, because precedents limit the liability of owners of animals that  cause such damage.

 

In the instant case, Doerr saw Goldsmith holding a dog on one side of the road on which Doerr was cycling, and he also saw Julie Smith on the other side of the road, making gestures for the dog to cross the road.



Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!


 

The dog crossed the road in response to the commands of its owner, while Doerr crashed into the dog. He suffered injuries and sued.

 

The unsigned court opinion observed, “When harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner can be held liable if he knew, or should have known, of the animal’s vicious propensities.” However, the court observed that in the instant case, there was no evidence that Smith was aware of her dog’s “propensity to interfere with traffic.”

 

Justice Angela Mazzarelli held in dissent that the majority opinion could make it impossible to ever hold the owner of an animal liable for its actions under any circumstances. Mazzarelli distinguished the instant case from its precedents and said, “Simply put, this case is different from the cases addressing the issue of injury claims arising out of animal behaviour, because it was defendants’ actions, and not the dog’s own instinctive, volitional behaviour, that caused the accident.”

Did you like this? Share it:
Cyclist Injured by Dog Cannot Sue Owner, though Dog Moved on Owner’s Command by

Tagged: , , , ,

Posted by on April 18, 2013. Filed under Legal News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.