Flanders v. Goodfellow:  New York dog bite victims get 2/3rds cup of justice

by Kenneth M. Phillips

Guest columnist Kenneth M. Phillips,  of Los Angeles,  an attorney since 1976,  is the senior legal specialist in dog bite cases worldwide and is author of his own Dog Bite Law blog.

On April 17, 2025, the highest court in New York state issued a blockbuster decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow that fixed a grave error it made in 2006.  That year,  the court ruled there was no such thing as dog owner negligence.

With this new ruling,  dog bite victims in New York can now seek compensation under two legal theories:  the ancient one free bite rule,  and negligence.

But most Americans have a third option too:  state dog bite statutes.  To give New Yorkers equal protection,  the New York legislature must enact a strong, well-drafted dog bite law.

The Background: Bard v. Jahnke

In 2006,  New York’s Court of Appeals made a gut-wrenching mistake.  In Bard v. Jahnke,  it ruled that a domestic animal owner could not be sued for negligently failing to prevent harm.  The court said liability existed only if the animal had previously shown a tendency to cause that specific harm — and if the owner knew about it.

Negligence was not enough.  The only “wrongdoing” was knowingly keeping a dangerous animal.

The facts of Bard illustrate this harsh rule.  Larry Bard,  a carpenter,  was seriously injured by a breeding bull while working in a barn.  He had not been warned that the bull was inside.  The bull, named Fred,  had never hurt anyone before.  Because of that,  defendant Reinhardt Jahnke claimed through his attorney that he had no duty to warn Bard or remove Fred from the barn.  Bard’s lawsuit was dismissed.  He got nothing for his broken ribs,  torn liver,  or aggravated spine injury.

From that point forward,  New York became the first state to explicitly reject negligence as a way to hold dog owners accountable.  Victims in the Empire State were stuck with the one free bite rule — and nothing else.

The One Bite Rule

The Bard court reaffirmed the “one free bite rule,” also known as “first bite free rule.”  The principle dates to 17th-century England — and even earlier.

Exodus 21:28-29 states:

“If an ox gore a man or a woman,  that they die:  then the ox shall be surely stoned,  and his flesh shall not be eaten;  but the owner of the ox shall be quit.  But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past…and he hath not kept him in…the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.”

In short: the owner was liable only if the animal had done it before and the owner failed to prevent it.

This rule came to America via English common law.  But most states later replaced it with statutory liability,  which made dog owners responsible for attacks even if the dog had never bitten before.  As one modern judge put it:

“A dog should have no greater right to a first bite than one has to a first murder.” – Clark v. Joiner, 242 Ga. App. 421 (2000) (Ruffin, J., concurring).

Memo to New York lawmakers

As I wrote in a memo to New York lawmakers:

“The ‘one free bite rule’ was announced centuries ago,  before the proliferation of the pit bull,  the availability of liability insurance,  and the passage of the first animal cruelty laws.

“In modern America, our ideas about personal responsibility are far different.

“Additionally, we have inexpensive liability insurance,  and dangerous dogs who did not exist when the one free bite rule was announced (namely pit bulls).

The blowback after Bard

The Bard decision was criticized for years by dissenting judges, lawmakers, and legal experts.

Justice R.S. Smith dissented:

“The rule the majority adopts is contrary to simple fairness. Why should a person who is negligent in managing an automobile or a child be subject to liability,  and not one who is negligent in managing a horse or bull?  There are no good answers to these questions.”

In 2019,  New York state senator Robert Ortt asked me to help draft a dog bite statute.  The result was Senate Bill 122,  which added strict liability for dog bites.  I explained:

“A dog bite can have the same painful consequences as a fall from a ladder,  but the dog bite victim is the only one who has to produce evidence that the accident happened before,  and that the defendant knew about it.  Clearly, New York’s civil liability law pertaining to dog bites must be changed.”

Unfortunately, the bill stalled.  Nothing changed until 2025,  when Flanders v. Goodfellow overturned Bard.

Flanders v. Goodfellow Rejects Bard

On December 8, 2018,  postal carrier Rebecca Flanders went to the Goodfellows’ home to deliver a package.  Their mailbox was missing,  so Flanders pulled into the Goodfellows’ driveway.  She heard a dog barking,  but saw no warnings and had no alerts from her scanner.

Stephen Goodfellow opened the door.  As Flanders handed him the package and told him about the mailbox,  a large dog charged from inside the house.  The dog lunged at her neck.  She raised her arm in defense.  The dog bit her shoulder and tore muscle. Stephen Goodfellow pulled the dog off.  She returned to her vehicle in shock.  The bite required several surgeries and left permanent scarring.

The Dog’s History

The dog weighed 70 pounds.  As a puppy,  the dog dragged Michelle Goodfellow to the ground during a walk.  They hired a trainer.  Michelle Goodfellow later posted that the dog could run off-leash and tolerated other animals.  She said the dog did not interact with strangers.

But two postal workers swore the dog was dangerously aggressive.  One said the dog bit at the window,  sprayed saliva,  bared teeth,  barked, growled,  and slammed into the glass.

He called it “the most aggressive” dog he had ever encountered.

The other postal worker said the dog barked and snarled,  slammed the dog’s own face into the glass,  and created a ruckus that anyone at home would notice.

He believed the dog was dangerous,  but didn’t report the incident,  thinking he could escape using the driveway.

What the Court Had to Decide

Flanders lost a summary judgment motion in the trial court and again on appeal.  The lower courts said she did not have enough evidence under the one bite rule,  and could not sue for negligence because of the Bard decision.

The Court of Appeals on April 17, 2025 disagreed on both counts.

Under the one bite rule,  the Court said that the dog’s behavior — snarling,  slamming into windows,  baring teeth — raised “questions of credibility.”

In plain terms,  it was up to a jury to decide whether the Goodfellows knew the dog was dangerous.  So summary judgment was reversed.

On negligence,  the Court was ready to overrule Bard.  Yes,  courts usually follow stare decisis (“let the decision stand”),  but not always.

Citing past cases,  the Court said:

“Where we have concluded that a rule of non-liability is out of tune with the life about us,  we have overruled it.”

Why Bard had to go

The Court then explained why Bard had to go:

• It shifted the burden of injury onto victims instead of negligent dog owners.
• It discouraged owners from learning about their dog’s dangerous tendencies.
• 36 other states recognize negligence; the rest have not rejected it.
• New York courts had already chipped away at Bard through exceptions.
• It was simply unfair.

The Court then reversed the summary judgment on a second ground,  holding that dog bite victims in New York may sue under the one free bite rule,  negligence,  or both.

The decision was unanimous.

Flanders gives New Yorkers just 2/3rds of a cup of justice

In most states,  dog attack victims have three options:

•  The one free bite rule,  which requires the victim to prove that the dog bit someone before;

•  Negligence;

•  Statutory liability;

Flanders gave New Yorkers two of the three.  But that is not enough.

Statutory liability (often called “almost-strict liability”) offers compensation without forcing victims to prove the dog was known to be dangerous or the owner was careless.  This form of liability is limited—it does not apply to trespassers or those who provoke dogs—but it covers most victims.

Why these laws matter

These laws are important for two big reasons:

They reduce tension between friends,  relatives,  and neighbors,  since most victims know the dog’s owner.

They shift the financial burden from Medicare,  Medicaid,  or personal health insurance to homeowners or renters insurance—where it belongs.

New Yorkers need more than Flanders and more than the outdated one free bite rule.

They need statutory liability.

The Legislature must act now.  Dog bite victims in New York deserve the same protections as people in most other states.  The one free bite rule and Flanders are not enough.  Justice demands a modern dog bite statute—and the time to pass it is now.

Please donate to support our work:

More related posts: