Schwartz v. Armand Erpf Estate
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Saxe, J.
Over the years, the intersection of animals, people and the law has spawned a tort recovery doctrine known as the rule of vicious propensity (see, Benoit v Troy & Lansingburgh R. R. Co., 154 NY 223, 225; Brown v Willard, 303 NY 727). Under this rule, a person who is bitten, clawed, pecked, scratched, or mauled by a domestic animal could obtain monetary recovery only by proving that the domestic animal’s owner has prior knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensity to cause harm.
In most circumstances, application of the rule of vicious propensity provides a proper…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Basso v. MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Scurti v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Dickson v. . McCoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Morse v. Buffalo Tank Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Arnold v. LairdWashington Supreme Court · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Shaw v. BurgessAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Germain v. Dutchess County Agricultural SocietyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Williams v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Petrone v. FernandezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.