Seybolt v. Wheeler
Decision Date | 05 July 2007 |
Docket Number | 501965. |
Citation | 42 A.D.3d 643,2007 NY Slip Op 05820,839 N.Y.S.2d 830 |
Parties | FRED SEYBOLT et al., Individually and as Parents and Guardians of BRENT SEYBOLT, an Infant, Respondents-Appellants, v. DANIEL WHEELER et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiffs' son, Brent (born in 1991), was a frequent guest at the home of defendants Daniel Wheeler and Colleen Wheeler (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) until July 2003, when he was attacked by defendants' dog. When Brent and Daniel Wheeler attempted to throw Wheeler's young daughter into a pool, the dog evidently knocked Brent down and bit him on the right side of his face around the eye, requiring an initial nine-day hospital stay and numerous surgeries since that time. Brent still sees "double" in the peripheral vision of his right eye and experiences abnormal swelling above the eye.
In 2005, plaintiffs commenced this action, individually and on Brent's behalf, against defendants and the owners of defendants' home, to recover damages arising out of the dog bite. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and defendants and their landlords cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that they had no knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities. Supreme Court granted the landlords summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to them, but otherwise denied the motions, finding questions of fact regarding whether defendants knew or should have known of the dog's alleged propensities. Plaintiffs and defendants cross-appeal from the denial of their motions.
We affirm. It has long been the rule that "the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal's vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities" (Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 446 [2004]; see Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 596-597 [2006]). Such knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities may be established by proof of a prior bite, that the dog was restrained by its owners in a particular manner, or that the dog showed other threatening or aggressive behavior, such as growling, snapping or baring its teeth (see Collier v Zambito, supra at 446-447; Czarnecki v Welch, 13 AD3d 952, 953 [2004]; Morse v Colombo, 8 AD3d 808, 809 [2004]). In contrast, isolated or minor incidents indicative of "rambunctious behavior [will] show awareness of a vicious propensity only if it [was that] very behavior that resulted in [the] plaintiff's injury" (Campo v Holland, 32 AD3d 630, 631 [2006]; see Brooks v Parshall, 25 AD3d 853, 854 [2006]; Rogers v Travis, 229 AD2d 879, 880 [1996]). Similarly, evidence of "normal canine behavior," such as barking and chasing small animals, is insufficient (Collier v Zambito, supra at 447; see Campo v Holland, supra at 631; Fontanas v Wilson, 300 AD2d 808, 809 [2002]).
In support of their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs introduced an affidavit of the dog's veterinarian and veterinarian records from April 2001, which stated, "Patient is Aggressive" and "Tried to bite—owner to muzzle!" The records further indicate that Daniel Wheeler sought a behavioral consultation in May 2001, after the dog had "shown aggression to [a] neighbor," backing the neighbor into a garage. Plaintiffs additionally submitted an affidavit from the neighbor, Sean Kelly, describing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bloomer v. Shauger
...vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” ( Seybolt v. Wheeler, 42 A.D.3d 643, 644, 839 N.Y.S.2d 830 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Barone v. Phillips, 83 A.D.3d 1523, 1523–1524, 921 N.Y.S.2d 4......
-
92 Court St. Holding Corp. v. Monnet
...the sole competent evidence submitted ( see Craft v. Whittmarsh, 83 A.D.3d 1271, 1273, 920 N.Y.S.2d 821 [2011];Seybolt v. Wheeler, 42 A.D.3d 643, 645, 839 N.Y.S.2d 830 [2007];Bond v. Giebel, 14 A.D.3d 849, 850, 787 N.Y.S.2d 512 [2005] ). Standing alone, such a report is insufficient to rais......
-
Basile v. Salka
...as growling, snapping or baring its teeth. (See, Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 344, 775 N.Y.S.2d 205 (2004); Seybolt v. Wheeler, 42 A.D.3d 643, 839 N.Y.S.2d 830 (3d Dept. 2007)). The defendants have established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that......
-
Bitonti v. McGeever
...but only when such proclivity results in an injury (see Collier v. Zambito, supra; Dykeman v. Heht, supra; Seybolt v. Wheeler, 42 A.D.3d 643, 839 N.Y.S.2d 830 ). In contrast, evidence of “normal canine behavior,” such as barking and chasing small animals, is insufficient to demonstrate vici......