Was Pet’s Owner Liable for Common Law Negligence?
Francisco Murga sued to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of an encounter with a dog owned by Richard Yarusso. Yarusso moved for summary judgment dismissing Murga’s complaint. Supreme Court granted the motion. Murga appealed.
Murga testified at his deposition that he was walking in the street for exercise, when the dog ran from Yarusso’s property into the street and pushed him to the ground. The dog did not bite Murga. Murga described the dog as acting like “a big puppy” and thought that the dog was trying to play with him. By contrast, at his deposition, Yarusso testified that his dog was running in his front lawn to catch a ball that the he had thrown; the dog did not go into the street or have contact with the Murga; and that he believed that Murga tripped upon seeing his dog.
The complaint alleged that Yarusso was negligent in failing to keep the dog under control and to take protective measures knowing of the aggressive propensity of the dog. Yarusso moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, submitting the transcripts of the parties’ deposition testimony and further evidence that the dog did not have any known vicious propensities. In opposition to the motion, Murga argued that the dog’s nature was irrelevant, and Yarusso was negligent for “throwing a ball during a game of catch,” which caused the dog to collide with Murga at a high rate of speed. Supreme Court granted the motion. Murga appealed. appeals.
An owner of a dog may be liable for injuries caused by that animal only when the owner had or should have had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities. Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation. Here, Murga did not dispute that Yarusso established that he was not aware, nor should have been aware, of any vicious propensities of his dog.
Murga contended that Yarusso may be liable for his negligence in throwing the ball, which caused the dog to run into the street and knock Murga to the ground. Even assuming that the evidence submitted on the motion supported that view of the facts, Murga could not recover under such a theory, as New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for an owner’s alleged negligence in the handling of a dog.
Supreme Court properly granted Yarusso’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.