Hastings v. Sauve

• Decision Date: 02 May 2013
• Parties: Karen HASTINGS et al., Appellants, v. Laurier SAUVE et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

21 N.Y.3d 122
989 N.E.2d 940
967 N.Y.S.2d 658
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03120

Karen HASTINGS et al., Appellants,
v.
Laurier SAUVE et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 2, 2013.

Fischer, Bessette, Muldowney & Hunter, LLP, Malone (Matthew H. McArdle of counsel), for appellants.

[967 N.Y.S.2d 659]

Napierski, VanDenburgh, Napierski & O'Connor, LLP, Albany (John W. VanDenburgh and Christina D. Porter of counsel), for Laurier Sauve, respondent.

O'Connor, O'Connor, Bresee & First, P.C., Albany (Danielle N. Meyers of counsel), for William Delarm, respondent.

[21 N.Y.3d 124]OPINION OF THE COURT
SMITH, J.

[989 N.E.2d 941]We hold that the rule of Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592, 815 N.Y.S.2d 16, 848 N.E.2d 463 (2006) does not bar a suit for negligence when a farm animal has been allowed to stray from the property where it is kept.

Karen Hastings was injured when the van she was driving hit a cow on a public road. The cow had been kept on property owned by Laurier Sauve, and the cow itself was owned by either Albert Williams or William Delarm. There was evidence that the fence separating Sauve's property from the road was overgrown and in bad repair.

[21 N.Y.3d 125]Hastings and her husband brought this personal injury action against Sauve, Williams and Delarm. Supreme Court granted summary judgment motions by Sauve and Delarm. The Appellate Division affirmed as to those defendants, and granted summary judgment as to Williams also, citing Bard and other cases for the proposition that “injuries inflicted by domestic animals may only proceed under strict liability based on the owner's knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities, not on theories of common-law negligence” ( Hastings v. Sauve, 94 A.D.3d 1171, 1172, 941 N.Y.S.2d 774 [3d Dept.2012] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). The Appellate Division expressed its “discomfort with this rule of law as it applies to these facts—and with this result” ( id. at 1173, 941 N.Y.S.2d 774), and later granted plaintiffs leave to appeal to this Court. We now hold that the rule of Bard is inapplicable to a case of this kind, and reverse the Appellate Division's order.

In Bard, we denied recovery to a plaintiff who was attacked by a bull while working in the barn where the bull was kept. Noting that the bull “had never attacked any farm animal or human being before,” we declined to “dilute our traditional rule” that a plaintiff in such a case must show that defendant had knowledge of the animal's...