On April 17, 2025, the highest court in New York issued a blockbuster decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow that fixed a grave error it made in 2006. That year, the court ruled there was no such thing as dog owner negligence. With this new ruling, dog bite victims in New York can now seek compensation under two legal theories: the ancient one bite rule and negligence. But most Americans have a third option too: state dog bite statutes. To give New Yorkers equal protection, the Legislature must enact a strong, well-drafted dog bite law.
The Background: Bard v. Jahnke
In 2006, New York’s Court of Appeals made a gut-wrenching mistake. In Bard v. Jahnke, it ruled that a domestic animal owner couldn’t be sued for negligently failing to prevent harm. The court said liability existed only if the animal had previously shown a tendency to cause that specific harm — and if the owner knew about it.
Negligence wasn’t enough. The only “wrongdoing” was knowingly keeping a dangerous animal.
The facts of Bard illustrate this harsh rule. Mr. Bard, a carpenter, was seriously injured by a breeding bull while working in a barn. He hadn’t been warned the bull was inside. The bull, named Fred, had never hurt anyone before. Because of that, the defendants claimed they had no duty to warn Bard or remove Fred from the barn. Bard’s lawsuit was dismissed. He got nothing for his broken ribs, torn liver, or aggravated spine injury.
From that point forward, New York became the first state to explicitly reject negligence as a way to hold dog owners accountable. Victims in the Empire State were stuck with the one bite rule — and nothing else.
The One Bite Rule
The Bard court reaffirmed the “one bite rule,” also known as “first bite free rule.” The principle dates to 17th-century England — and even earlier. Exodus 21:28-29 states:
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past … and he hath not kept him in … the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
In short: the owner was liable only if the animal had done it before and the owner failed to prevent it.
This rule came to America via English common law. But most states later replaced it with statutory liability, which made dog owners responsible for attacks even if the dog had never bitten before. As one modern judge put it:
“A dog should have no greater right to a first bite than one has to a first murder.” – Clark v. Joiner, 242 Ga. App. 421 (2000) (Ruffin, J., concurring).
Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips summarized the flaws of the rule in a memo to New York lawmakers:
The “one bite rule” was announced centuries ago, before the proliferation of the pit bull, the availability of liability insurance, and the passage of the first animal cruelty laws. … In modern America, our ideas about personal responsibility are far different … Additionally, we have inexpensive liability insurance … and dangerous dogs that did not exist when the one bite rule was announced (namely pitbulls).
The Blowback after Bard
The Bard decision was criticized for years by dissenting judges, lawmakers, and legal experts.
Justice R.S. Smith dissented:
The rule the majority adopts is contrary to simple fairness. Why should a person who is negligent in managing an automobile or a child be subject to liability, and not one who is negligent in managing a horse or bull? … There are no good answers to these questions.
In 2019, State Senator Robert Ortt asked Phillips to help draft a dog bite statute. The result was Senate Bill 122, which added strict liability for dog bites. Phillips explained:
A dog bite can have the same painful consequences as a fall from a ladder, but the dog bite victim is the only one who has to produce evidence that the accident happened before, and that the defendant knew about it. … Clearly, New York’s civil liability law pertaining to dog bites must be changed.
Unfortunately, the bill stalled. Nothing changed until 2025, when Flanders v. Goodfellow overturned Bard.
Flanders v. Goodfellow Rejects Bard
The Facts
On December 8, 2018, postal carrier Rebecca Flanders went to the Goodfellows’ home to deliver a package. Their mailbox was missing, so she pulled into the driveway. She heard a dog barking, but saw no warnings and had no alerts from her scanner.
Stephen Goodfellow opened the door. As Flanders handed him the package and told him about the mailbox, a large dog charged from inside the house. It lunged at her neck. She raised her arm in defense. The dog bit her shoulder and tore muscle. Stephen pulled the dog off. She returned to her vehicle in shock. The bite required several surgeries and left permanent scarring.
The Dog’s History
The dog weighed 70 pounds. As a puppy, it dragged Michelle Goodfellow to the ground during a walk. They hired a trainer. Michelle later posted that the dog could run off-leash and tolerated other animals. She said it didn’t interact with strangers.
But two postal workers swore the dog was dangerously aggressive. One said the dog:
- Bit at the window
- Sprayed saliva
- Bared teeth, barked, growled, and slammed into the glass
He called it “the most aggressive” dog he had ever encountered.
The other postal worker said the dog:
- Barked and snarled
- Slammed its face into the glass
- Created a ruckus anyone at home would notice
He believed it was dangerous but didn’t report it, thinking he could escape using the driveway.
What the Court Had to Decide
Flanders lost a summary judgment motion in the trial court and again on appeal. The lower courts said she didn’t have enough evidence under the one bite rule and couldn’t sue for negligence because of Bard.
The Court of Appeals disagreed on both counts.
Under the one bite rule, the Court said that the dog’s behavior — snarling, slamming into windows, baring teeth — raised “questions of credibility”. In plain terms, it was up to a jury to decide whether the Goodfellows knew the dog was dangerous. So summary judgment was reversed.
On negligence, the Court was ready to overrule Bard. Yes, courts usually follow stare decisis (“let the decision stand”), but not always. Citing past cases, the Court said:
Where we have concluded that a rule of nonliability is out of tune with the life about us … we have overruled it.
The Court then explained why Bard had to go:
- It shifted the burden of injury onto victims instead of negligent dog owners.
- It discouraged owners from learning about their dog’s dangerous tendencies.
- 36 other states recognized negligence; the rest had not rejected it.
- New York courts had already chipped away at Bard through exceptions.
- It was simply unfair.
The Court then reversed the summary judgment on a second ground, holding that dog bite victims in New York may sue under the one bite rule, negligence, or both. The decision was unanimous.
Flanders Gives New Yorkers Just 2/3rds a Cup of Justice
In most states, victims have three options:
- The one bite rule
- Negligence
- Statutory liability
Flanders gave New Yorkers two of the three. But it’s not enough.
Statutory liability (often called “almost-strict liability”) offers compensation without forcing victims to prove the dog was known to be dangerous or the owner was careless. It’s limited — it doesn’t apply to trespassers or those who provoke dogs — but it covers most victims.
These laws are important for two big reasons:
- They reduce tension between friends, relatives, and neighbors, since most victims know the dog’s owner.
- They shift the financial burden from Medicare, Medicaid, or personal health insurance to homeowners or renters insurance — where it belongs.
New Yorkers need more than Flanders and more than the outdated one bite rule.
They need statutory liability.
Conclusion
The Legislature must act now. Dog bite victims in New York deserve the same protections as people in most other states. The one bite rule and Flanders are not enough. Justice demands a modern dog bite statute — and the time to pass it is now.