Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Owning a dog requires a certain amount of common sense. A person who owns a dog is responsible for the actions of that dog. Teaching a dog proper manners is an essential part of dog ownership. Proper manners includes teaching them that it is not OK to bite a person. Dogs are carnivores. If they are taught that biting is OK, they will bite. If they are taught that it is OK to bite, even during play, it is not their fault if they bite someone. Some people like the idea of training their dogs to look vicious by having them bite and hold on while they swing them around. This type of play is a mistake that could cost your dog his life later on. A dog that is trained to be a vicious dog must carry specialized insurance and must be housed in a manner that will protect the neighbors and the person’s visitors from that animal. It is important before attempting to teach a dog to bite, that the owner seek professional assistance to direct them about the way to train the dog properly. Attack dog training is not something that the average dog owner should attempt to do on their own no matter how many TV shows they have seen, or how many books that they have read. Additionally, underground electric fences that are sometimes called invisible fences do not qualify as appropriate housing for a dog that has been trained to bite. That means that even if a misguided owner taught a dog to bite so that they could look cool to their friends, they must contain the dog differently and carry specialized insurance that covers the ownership of a vicious dog.

In one case that happened in October of 2008, a small child was riding her bicycle in her neighborhood when she passed by the house of a neighbor in the Town of Marlborough in Ulster County. The neighbor had a dog in his yard that was wearing a containment electric collar and was inside an invisible fence. Most dog trainers will tell a dog owner that an invisible fence is not designed to contain a dog that is highly motivated to get out of the yard. A highly motivated dog learn quickly that the electric shock lasts only a second and then they are free. These fences are not predictable as to how well they will work or continue to work with a particular dog. It is because of this that they are not allowed for dogs that are considered vicious. Additionally, since the invisible fence is only intended to be effective against the dog exiting the yard and does not restrict the access of someone entering into the yard with the dog, it is totally ineffective at preventing the dog from coming in contact with strangers who could be bitten by the dog.

A real fence is designed to restrict access from both sides of the fence and is the only effective way to restrict a dog, especially one that has learned to enjoy the reward of sinking his teeth into something. In this case, the neighbor had only an invisible fence. The neighbor was a police officer in that area and had watched the trained K-9 police officers working with the professionally trained K-9 officers. For some reason, he thought that he could train his dog to bite into a bite sleeve without confusing the dog about the propriety of biting people on the arm. He purchased a bite sleeve and used it when he played with the dog. He would encourage the dog to bite down hard on the bite sleeve while he wore it on his arm and shake it around while the dog held on. He encouraged the dog to growl, shake his head, and refuse to let go until he was given a release word.

Continue reading

Small children should always be supervised when they are in the presence of a large dog. Assuming that the dog and the child will get along is never a good idea. It only takes a second for a dog to bite a child. Dogs bite their own puppies when they misbehave and most dogs will correct a child who misbehaves around them in the same fashion. A dog may consider that the child is not obeying proper manners and needs to be corrected if the child makes direct eye contact with dog. Puppies do not make direct eye contact with adult dogs other than their mother. If a puppy attempts to take food from an adult dog, it will usually correct the puppy and put him back into his place. There are many rules to dog behavior that animal behaviorists are educated about. Most small children are not educated to understand the social rules of canine society. An adult dog is likely to view a small child as they would a puppy and attempt to correct their mistakes as they would any youngster in their pack. Adults should never leave a small child unattended with any dog, especially one that they are not raised with. It is a recipe for disaster.

In the case at hand, on June 22, 2003, a man brought his son who was only three years of age to a family barbeque at his sister’s house. There were several other children present at the party and a large number of people present. His sister owned a full grown Rottweiler dog who the children had played with on occasion before. On this date, with all of the excitement present, the dog had become a nuisance at meal time. The sister had secured the dog in her bedroom. After several hours of confinement, the dog began to bark. The sister sent her child to let the dog out of her bedroom so that it would be quiet. None of the adults observed the interactions that the children had with the dog. At some point during the afternoon, the children went inside the house and began to feed the dog, dog- biscuits. The facts of the case change from child to child at this point.

The oldest child present stated that they were throwing the dog biscuits at the dog and that the baby went forward to retrieve a bone that he had given the dog. As the child reached for the dog bone to take it away from the dog, the dog growled and then bit him. The bite was administered as a sharp nipping type of bite with an immediate release which caused the baby to fall back against a corner of the wall. The child received injury to his throat and chin from the bite and the back of his head from hitting the wall. He was rushed to the emergency room.

Continue reading

Rescuing a fully grown dog is a noble thing to do when a person or family decides to add a dog to their family. However, it is important to know the dog’s temperament prior to bringing him home. In one case that occurred on September 8, 1958, a family had rescued a grown Dalmatian and taken him into their home. On the first day that they brought the dog home, he bit the mother of the home on her arm. The family dismissed this incident because they felt that the dog only bit her because he was being fed by a strange person. This was a mistake on their part in reference to dog behavior. It was a clear demonstration that the dog would likely pose a problem for them in the future. However, this family chose to ignore the incident and even continued to put the food down, unwittingly rewarding the dog for biting the mother.

In the next few years, the dog managed to bite almost every member of the family at least once. The family continued to make excuses for this inappropriate behavior because they said in court that they were just nips that did not break the skin. The trial court determined correctly that any reasonable person would have viewed these nips as a propensity for this dog to bite a person. Dogs are generally less likely to bite a member of their own family than they are to bite a stranger. Any dog that will bite or nip their own family will most likely bite a stranger. Making excuses for a dog biting anyone is misguided at best. A dog that bites will only cause problems for any family who takes him in. While adopting a full grown dog may seem like a good thing at the time, if the dog is a biter, it can only lead to someone becoming injured and possibly disfigured for life. Containing a vicious animal is critical to protecting both the animal and anyone with whom it may come in contact. Making excuses does not help the dog before or after the fact. Once a dog has bitten someone, it is less likely to be reserved about biting again. In the case of this dog, he had even bitten a friend of the youngest child in the family when the child came over to play. The family made excuses for the dog again by claiming that the young child was a stranger to the dog. No steps were taken to restrict the dog’s access to visitors and the fence that the dog was contained in when in the yard was directly adjacent to the public sidewalk.

On the date in question, an eleven year old boy was in front of this family’s house playing with a hoola hoop and one of his friends. The Dalmatian came out to them on the public sidewalk and attacked the boy. The boy was bitten on the stomach and right leg. He went to the hospital to get treatment for his injuries. His father filed a lawsuit on his behalf and requested summary judgment on the issue of liability and that the case go directly to a jury for an assessment of damages. The court agreed. There is clearly no reason to attempt to determine if the owners of this dog had prior knowledge of the dog’s propensity to bite a person. The dog had bitten everyone in his family. The attack took place on a public sidewalk and not inside the yard or on the property of the owner of the dog. The dog’s owner failed to contain the dog in a manner that would protect innocent citizens from being bitten by him.

Continue reading

A dog had lived at 1140 Ontario Street, Utica, with the defendants, who were affianced, for several years. He had a prior history of two or three bites that are essentially uncontested. Defendant (“the defendant”) had acquired the dog but was apparently the shared pet of both defendants until August of 2001. Defendant complained to the police that the other defendant (“the other defendant”) had taken the dog as an apparent consequence of the demise of their romance. Thus, on 2 August 2001, the defendant, in a police complaint attached to her papers, claimed that she owned the dog and that the other defendant, who had previously moved out of 1140 Ontario Street, wrongfully possessed the dog. The police report specifically quotes the defendant as claiming ownership of the dog and the other defendant is quoted as advising the police he would return the dog to the defendant. Both defendants claim that the other defendant did not return the dog and allege that they were separated on the day the bite occurred.

On 11 October 2001, some 69 days after the police complaint, the plaintiff while campaigning for public office was present at 1140 Ontario Street. The dog and the other defendant were both present. The dog was unrestrained and bit the plaintiff.

Subsequently, a dog bite case was filed by plaintiff against defendant by reason of the dog attack or animal attack resulting to his injury.

Continue reading

On 4 August 2003, plaintiff attended an afternoon party thrown by the defendants (defendant-one and defendant-two) at their house. While standing in defendants’ pool area, plaintiff was bitten on her left ankle by defendants’ dog, a nine year-old cockapoo weighing approximately twenty-five pounds.

Plaintiff has filed a complaint for the dog bite incident against defendants. Subsequently, plaintiff moves for an order granting her leave to serve and file an amended complaint to seek punitive damages; that defendants were negligent and should be held strictly liable for plaintiff’s injuries since they were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. Plaintiff is also asserting psychological damage resulting from the incident.

Defendants oppose the motion.

Continue reading

This case involves the plaintiff Meridith Dow and the defendants Carol Anne Dow, Laurence Beck, and the Buddy Project for Animal Rescue Inc. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Suffolk County. The judge hearing the case is Arthur G. Pitts.

The defendants in this case have made a motion and a cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaints that have been made against them by the plaintiff. They state that they cannot be held liable for the injuries that the plaintiff sustained as they did not own or control the dog. The plaintiff has made a cross move for a partial summary judgment in her favor on the liability issues as it is relevant to all of the defendants.

Case Background

Continue reading

Nancy Bianco et al are the appellants in this case. They are represented by the law offices of Gibbons & Burke from Scotia. The counsel for the appellants is J. William Burke. The respondent in this matter is Travelers Insurance Company. The respondent is represented by the law offices of Carusone, Toomey, and Carusone, from Saratoga Springs. The counsel for the respondent is David A. Harper.

This is an appeal case regarding an order issued by the Special Term of the Supreme Court. The original order made by the Supreme Court granted a motion for summary judgment to the defendant. This judgment dismissed the complaint made against them.

This issue for this appeal is whether or not the defendant insurance company is responsible for defending the plaintiffs in the action that is against them on behalf of a child that was bitten by a dog that the plaintiffs owned.

Continue reading

The plaintiff for this particular case is Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company. The defendants in the case are Karen Venezia, Patricia and Christopher McMonigle, and Megan Lawlor. The defendants are called the Venezia defendants throughout the case. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Nassau County.

Case Background

The Venezia defendants have made a motion to grant a summary judgment and direct the plaintiff, Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company to provide defense and coverage in the case of Megan Lawlor versus Karen Venezia and to award reasonable counsel fees.

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. The plaintiff in the case is Janine Gordon. The defendants of the case are Grace Roselli and Grace Louhaichy, and Vera Reality Corporation. The judge overseeing the case is David I. Schmidt.

The defendant has moved for a summary judgment in the case to dismiss the complaint made against them by Janine Gordon and any cross claims that may be asserted against them as well.

Case Background

Continue reading

At around 7:00 to 8:00 pm on September 11, 2002, a lady was walking on the sidewalk of Second Avenue to meet a friend at a yogurt shop. When she reached the part of the sidewalk halfway between East 46th and East 47th Streets, her foot turned and twisted to the left and then to the right. She lost her footing and her balance and she fell on the sidewalk.

That part of the sidewalk where she fell abuts a building named after a former Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization. The building was managed by a subsidiary of the corporation that owned the building. The woman sued the City of New York, the building owner and the building manager.

The City of New York, the building owner and the building manager all filed motions for summary judgment asking that the complaint be dismissed. The building owner and manager argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the lady could not say what caused her to trip and fall; that it had no duty to maintain the sidewalk as it derived no special use of the sidewalk; it did not create the defect of dangerous condition on the sidewalk. The City of New York argued that the defect that the lady alleged to have caused her accident is too trivial to be actionable; and even if it were not too trivial, the City never caused or created the defect and the defect was not proven to be the immediate cause of her fall.

Continue reading