Understanding the Court of Appeals Holding in Flanders v. Goodfellow: A Dog Bite Case and Its Implications for Dog Owners and Third-Parties

Dog bite cases often present complex legal issues, especially when it comes to liability. The recent decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow sheds light on how the courts address these matters, particularly in relation to landlords who rent to tenants with dogs. The Court of Appeals ruled on an important issue: can a plaintiff in a dog bite case seek recovery under an ordinary negligence standard.

The Flanders case has significant implications for owners of dogs as well as third-parties, such as landlords, as it underscores the responsibility that dog owners and third-parties may have for ensuring the safety of others with respect to dogs.

Case Background: What Happened in Flanders?

In Flanders, the plaintiff was a postal carrier that was bitten by Goodfellow’s dog while on defendant’s property attempting to deliver a package. The key issue in the case was whether Flanders could seek recovery based on a negligence standard. Prior to the holding in Flanders, the general rule in dog bite cases was that an owner of a dog could only be held liable under a “strict liability” theory. Under this rule, if a plaintiff was able to prove that the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dog’s “vicious propensities”, the owner would be held strictly liable for the harm caused by the animal. Prior to Flanders, negligence was not a viable means of recovery.  

The Court of Appeals Holding

The Court of Appeals set forth a new two-pronged approach to potential liability for harms caused by animals. If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may continue to seek to hold them strictly liable. This rule has not changed. Alternatively, and in addition to the above strict liability cause of action, the plaintiff can now rely on rules of ordinary negligence to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances. 

While the case primarily focused on Goodfellow’s responsibility as the dog owner, the ruling has important implications for third-parties, including landlords who lease property to tenants with dogs. Below are the key takeaways from the case and how they affect landlords.

Implications for Owners of Dogs and Third-Parties

The Court of Appeals has now made it clear that in addition to the strict liability theory of recovery, a plaintiff may now seek recovery against a defendant based on defendant’s failure to exercise due care. With respect to dog owners, even if the dog has not previously exhibited “viscous propensities”, owners can still be held liable from a negligence standard if plaintiff is able to prove that the dog owner failed to exercise due care. It remains to be seen to what extent a third-party, such as a landlord, owes a duty with respect to an animal not owned by the third-party. However, as a result of this ruling, both owners and third-parties have increased potential legal exposure in that it is now clear that negligence is affirmatively on the table. 

Flanders has set an important legal precedent in dog bite cases. For third-parties, namely landlords, the decision serves as a reminder of their potential liability when it comes to tenants’ pets, particularly if a dog bite injury occurs on their property. By taking proactive steps—such as carefully screening tenants’ pets, including pet clauses in lease agreements, and ensuring proper insurance coverage—landlords can minimize the risk of liability while maintaining a safe environment for all residents and visitors.

Landlords should also be aware that their actions (or lack thereof) in response to dangerous pets on their property could result in significant legal and financial consequences. With proper precautions, landlords can mitigate the risks associated with tenant dog ownership.