Dog Bite Lawsuit Dismissed

            In Hai v. Psoras, 2018 Slip Op 07704 (decided on November 14, 2018), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Queens County Supreme Court Judge's decision to dismiss a plaintiff's personal injury case that arose from a dog bite.  Particularly, the case arose on June 3, 2008, when the plaintiff, 11 years old, was allegedly bitten by a dog in the care of one of the defendants, who was walking the dog (as when the plaintiff walked by the dog, the dog jumped up an bit the plaintiff in the arm).  The plaintiff thereafter commenced a lawsuit against defendants, including the owner of the dog, to recover for personal injuries, and after the discovery process concluded, the defendant moved for summary judgment (seeking to dismiss plaintiff's case) contending, among other things, that the defendants had no notice of the dog's alleged vicious propensities.  The trial court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff thereafter appealed.

            The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the lower court's decision, holding, among other things, the following: "The deposition testimony of [defendants], and the plaintiffs demonstrated that, in the time that the dog was being cared for by [defendants], it never bit anyone, nor did not growl, snarl, bark, lunge, snap, or bare its teeth.  In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether [defendants] knew or should have known of the dog's alleged vicious propensities...  The fact that the dog had previously bitten and locked its jaws on a stick was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had vicious propensities...[defendants] testimony that he told [plaintiff] to get away from the dog just before the attack does not indicate that he believed the dog to be dangerous...Further, the nature and severity of the attach does not demonstrate that [defendants] knew or should have known of the dog's alleged vicious propensities..."

Salvatore R. Marino, Esq.