Morales v. Quinones
| Decision Date | 23 October 1979 |
| Citation | 420 N.Y.S.2d 899,72 A.D.2d 519 |
| Parties | Lisa MORALES, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ceferino QUINONES et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. Farlekas, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. V. Henry, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before MURPHY, P. J., and BIRNS, BLOOM, MARKEWICH and SILVERMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 20, 1978, on the issue of liability only, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial, with costs and disbursements to abide the event.
The infant plaintiff, age 8, while visiting relatives, was allegedly bitten by a dog owned by the relatives' neighbor. Plaintiff's main point on appeal is that the court disregarded plaintiffs' request to direct the attention of the jury to the age of the infant and the standard of conduct required of such infant at the time of the occurrence.
Liability in vicious propensity or dog bite cases is "absolute" (People v. Sandgren, 302 N.Y. 331, 339, 98 N.E.2d 460, 464) and is not dependent upon proof of negligence in the manner of keeping the animal (Molloy v. Starin, 191 N.Y. 21, 25, 83 N.E. 588, 589; Lynch v. McNally, 73 N.Y. 347, 349; Muller v. McKesson, 73 N.Y. 195, 199). The keeping of the animal, knowing its vicious propensities, is the gravamen of the offense (Muller v. McKesson, supra, p. 200).
However, a dog owner is relieved of liability if it can be shown that the injured plaintiff had full knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities and voluntarily brought about the injury (DiGrazia v. Castronova, 48 A.D.2d 249, 251, 368 N.Y.S.2d 898, 900).
After describing the circumstances under which vicious propensity was or was not to be found, the court directed the jury's attention to defendants' claim that the infant voluntarily brought her injuries upon herself. The court than changed:
If you find that, with Full knowledge of the dog's propensities, the infant placed her arm through the fence in an attempt to pet this dog and enticed the animal and Thus brought about her own injuries, you may bring in a verdict for the defendant.
If you find the defendants' dog had vicious propensities and the defendants had knowledge of such propensities or that a reasonably prudent person would have had such knowledge, your verdict will be for the plaintiff, unless, of course, you find that Lisa Morales brought about her own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nardi v. Gonzalez
...the defendant. A vicious propensity is the tendency of a dog to do an act which might endanger another ...") ]; Morales v. Quinones, 72 A.D.2d 519, 420 N.Y.S.2d 899, 900 (1979) ("Liability in vicious propensity or dog bite cases is 'absolute' ... and is not dependent upon proof of negligenc......
-
Gordon v. Harris, 1
...would have exercised under similar circumstances presents a question of fact for the jury to determine (see Morales v. Quinones, 72 A.D.2d 519, 520, 420 N.Y.S.2d 899). Accordingly, summary judgment as to this defendant was properly Order affirmed, without costs. ...
-
Hayden v. Sieni
...N.E.2d 365; Austin v. Bascaran, 185 A.D.2d 474, 585 N.Y.S.2d 859; Silva v. Micelli, 178 A.D.2d 521, 577 N.Y.S.2d 444; Morales v. Quinones, 72 A.D.2d 519, 420 N.Y.S.2d 899). As such, it is settled that a jury charge explaining general principles of negligence should not be given in a dog bit......
-
Wheaton v. Guthrie
...known to defendant. A vicious propensity is the tendency of a dog to do an act which might endanger another (Morales v. Quinones, 72 A.D.2d 519, 420 N.Y.S.2d 899; LaGoda v. Dorr, 28 A.D.2d 208, 284 N.Y.S.2d 130; Scharf v. Manson, 27 A.D.2d 613, 275 N.Y.S.2d 629). The testimony established t......