TortsAnimalsLiability for vicious dogsdog bitescientervicious propensitiesowner liabilitydangerous animals
Facts
The complaint alleged that the defendant wrongfully kept several fierce and dangerous dogs and knew they were ferocious, vicious, mischievous, and accustomed to attack and bite mankind. It further alleged that on May 10, 1895, while the dogs were in the defendant's keeping, the dogs or some of them attacked, bit, and severely wounded the plaintiff. The complaint did not allege any separate act of negligence or any active participation by the defendant in the attack. The question was whether the complaint was nevertheless legally sufficient.
Issue
Must a plaintiff injured by a dog allege, in addition to the owner's knowing keeping of a fierce, vicious, and dangerous dog accustomed to bite mankind, that the owner actively participated in the injury or was negligent, in order to recover?
Rule
When a fierce, vicious, and dangerous dog, known by its owner to have such propensities and to be accustomed to bite mankind, attacks and wounds a human being, the law presumes the dog to be the aggressor. In that situation, the owner may be held liable without any additional allegation of active participation or negligence, and the burden lies on the owner to show provocation or other excuse.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Albany, Nora Patel sued Evan Mercer after Evan's dog bit her on the sidewalk outside his townhouse. Her complaint alleges that Evan knowingly kept a fierce, vicious, and dangerous dog accustomed to attack and bite people, and that while the dog was in his keeping it attacked and severely injured her, but it does not allege negligent restraint or any active conduct by Evan during the attack.
If Evan moves to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to allege negligence or active participation, how should the court rule?
Explanation. The majority held that a complaint is sufficient when it alleges that the owner knowingly kept a fierce, vicious, and dangerous dog accustomed to bite mankind and that the dog attacked and wounded a human being while in the owner's keeping. No separate allegation of negligence or active participation is required. The owner's defenses, such as provocation or excuse, are defensive matters rather than pleading elements for the plaintiff.