Episode #10 - Cows, Carpenters and Canines

Today is story time.
We’re talking about a farmer, two carpenters, and a bull—and how that unusual mix ties directly into how New York handles injuries caused by domestic animals. This episode walks through the history behind the “one-bite rule,” how Bard v. Jahnke shaped the law for two decades, and why these principles mattered so much for dog bite claims.

Important Update:
Since this podcast was originally recorded, the New York Court of Appeals issued a major decision—Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025)—which changed the legal framework for these cases.

While Bard once barred negligence claims entirely, Flanders overruled that limitation. New York now recognizes two distinct theories of liability when someone is injured by a domestic animal:

1. Strict Liability – based on the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of a vicious propensity.
2. Negligence – based on a failure to exercise reasonable care, even without a known vicious propensity.

This episode still offers valuable context, because it explains how the old framework was built. But keep this updated legal landscape in mind as you listen.

Referenced Cases

• Bard v. Jahnke – The original “no negligence” rule for domestic animals.
• Collier v. Zambito – The modern definition of “vicious propensity” under strict liability.
• Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025) – The decision that restored negligence as a viable cause of action in New York for animal-related injuries.

Learn More

• Auten Claims Management – Liability investigations done the right way.
• CMR Consulting – Industry-focused training and thought leadership from Chantal Roberts.
• Art of Adjusting® – Chantal’s essential book for adjusters who want to elevate their craft.

Stay Connected

If you enjoy the show, hit subscribe, and share it with your adjuster friends.
If you're exploring a career in liability adjusting—or you need reliable investigation services—visit Auten Claims Management for more information.

For more about Chantal Roberts and her work in the industry, visit CMR Consulting.

For more insights, you might consider a career in liability adjusting or if you're searching for reliable adjusting services, visit Auten Claims Management.

To explore more about Chantal Roberts and her contributions to the industry, visit CMR Consulting.

Promotions:

• Once Upon a Claim: Explore the magical world of claims adjusting through fairy tales. Get your copy now.
• The Art of Adjusting®: Master the art of claims adjusting with practical insights and expert advice. Purchase here.

Chapters

• 0:06 Hosts And Episode Setup
• 0:33 Important 2025 Legal Update
• 2:31 Two-Track Liability Explained
• 4:41 Story Setup: The Dairy Farm
• 7:18 The Bull Attack On Larry
• 10:47 Strict Liability Vs Negligence Under Bard
• 14:17 Defining Vicious Propensity
• 18:09 Critiques And Edge Cases
• 18:48 Closing And Resources

Transcript

William Auten: 0:06

Hello, I'm Bill Auten of Auten Claims Management. I'm Chantal Roberts of CMR Consulting, and welcome to the Art of Adjusting Podcast. Today we're going to talk about life as an insurance adjuster from the perspective of property, auto, liability, or workers' compensation adjusters. Our goal is to bring interesting topics in the world of claims adjusting to people who are working as an adjuster now and to people who are considering a career as a claims adjuster. Hello everyone. This episode was originally recorded in 2022, but uh before we get into that episode, I need to give you an important update. Uh so today it's November 15, 2025. So when this podcast was originally recorded, New York followed a very narrow framework for injuries caused by domestic animals. For years, liability lived or died on one issue, whether the owner knew or should have known that the animal had a vicious propensity. If they didn't, the claim failed. Negligence or ordinary carelessness was simply off the table in these types of claims. That was the rule reaffirmed in the case Bard versus Janke, which is uh the one I talk about in in this episode. This is the case involving the bull in the dairy barn. This shaped New York law for almost two decades, and it's the rule I discussed throughout the episode you're about to hear. But that landscape changed on April 17th, 2025, when the New York Court of Appeals issued a major decision in Flanders versus Goodfellow, and I'm going to put a link to that in the show notes. In this case, a postal carrier was bitten by a homeowner's dog during a routine delivery. What makes this case important is not just the bite itself, but the broader legal question the court finally addressed, which is should negligence be allowed as a basis for recovery when someone is injured by a d domestic animal? So just so you know, uh the the Bard case established that strict liability would apply if there was vicious propensity. That's different than um whether negligence should apply. So in this case, uh Flanders v. Goodfellow, the Court of Appeals said yes. And what they did it basically overruled Bard and eliminated the absolute bar on negligence claims. Now here's what that means for dog bite claims going forward. New York now uses this two-track system for animal-related injury claims. Strict liability still applies when the owner knew or should have known that the animal had a propensity to behave in a way that could cause harm with a vicious propensity. That part of the framework that always existed still exists. That's still part of the New York law. The new part relates to negligence. This is now available as an alternative theory. If the owner failed to exercise reasonable care, whether that involves restraining the animal, warning visitors, securing gates, or simply paying attention to behavior that poses a foreseeable risk, they can now be held liable even without proof of a known vicious propensity. This is a really significant shift. And it brings New York in line with almost every other state and corrects what many courts, lawyers, and judges had viewed as an increasingly unworkable, unfair, and outdated rule. This also resolves decades of tension where courts were carving out exceptions to BARD just to reach practical results. For adjusters and attorneys handling these cases, the implications are substantial. We still need to examine prior behavior because strict liability remains a powerful tool. But we also now have to evaluate ordinary fault, just as we would in any other liability claim. That means documenting control measures, warnings, training, leash handling, containment systems, and any other facts that show whether the owner acted reasonably. The episode you're about to hear walks through the logic and history behind the old rule. That background is still valuable because it explains how we ended up here, but keep in mind that no uh New York no longer operates under a strict one-bite-only framework. Flanders v. Goodfellow modernized the law and expanded the paths for recovery for claimants. Within that context, let's get into the original episode. So today is going to be story time. We're going to talk about a farmer, two carpenters, and a bull, and how all of those individuals and that animal relate to dog bite claims in New York State. For this story, we're going to go way back to September 27, 2001, to a dairy farm in Otsego County, New York. The farm was owned by a guy named Reinhart and his wife and their two sons. Now, Reinhart liked to hire self-employed carpenters to do work around the farm when he needed it. Reinhart hired John, a longtime self-employed carpenter, to fix things around the farm on occasion, and on this particular date he had also engaged to the services of a guy named Larry, another self-employed carpenter. Now, on this farm, like many dairy farms, the cows actually had mattresses. Cow mattresses are actually a thing now. Just like us human beings enjoy a nice, soft, warm bed, it so happens that cows like them too. Now, cow mattresses are made from really heavy-duty rubber and they're extremely durable. Cow mattresses are designed to provide warmth, comfort, and slip resistant, and these factors usually improve the overall health of the cows. Now, these mattresses are tough, but they're not invincible, and sometimes they get damaged. So one of Reinhardt's sons had asked John to fix one of these ripped cow mattresses in a certain section of the farm called the Low Cow District. Now, this is a really big barn. It housed about 400 cows at the time, and 130 of them lived in this low cow district. So to make the repair, John was going to have to go in to where the cows hung out, and he'd have to chisel off the bolts on the floor and then refasten the mattresses down. Now Larry was an acquaintance of John as well and knew that he had been working on the farm for Reinhardt as well. So John approached Larry and asked if he'd be interested in helping him make these repairs to the mattresses, and Larry, you know, said, sure, what could go wrong? So John had been working on this farm for about four or five years. So he knew the place pretty well. He walked Larry around the dairy and pointed out to some of the projects that he had completed, and he took Larry down to the Barnes Low Cow District. He explained to Larry how to make these mattress repairs, and then he went on to complete another chore and left Larry to his own devices. So this is a cow barn and there's cows, and neither Larry nor John testified that they had ever seen a bull in the area. You see where I'm going with this? Now, John knew that there was a bull at another barn about a quarter mile away, but he never really knew exactly where that bull was at all times. So Larry had to go get some tools from his truck. He got them over to the mattress and he started working on the mattress repair at about 8 30 a.m. He recalled that a lot of cows came up to him to visit with him, and he stated that he was actually pretty familiar with cows. He worked around them quite a while and he was really familiar with them and actually stated that they would come up and drool on you and lick you and everything else. In fact, he said that he didn't really pay much attention to them. Then at about 9 a.m. he was down on his knees and he was undertaking these mattress repairs, trying to break the bolts loose, and he noticed a bull. He testified that the bull bellered within a distance of two or three feet from him. He slowly looked around and didn't really know what to do. Next, the bull was right on top of him. Larry tried to stand up and once he did, the bull charged him, and in doing so he slammed Larry into one of the pipes in the stall. Now nobody else was around when this happened. Reinhardt, the owner of the farm, nor his sons, knew that John was going to have Larry help him with the mattress repairs that day. So nobody really knew that Larry was going to be down in that area. So now Larry was hurt pretty bad. He was able to pull himself through the opening at the bottom of the barn, and he crawled over to his truck and he lay there for a while to try and figure out what to do next. He saw one of Reinhardt's other farm workers in the field and he called out to him and asked him to call an ambulance. Larry was taken to the hospital, and he was treated, and he was diagnosed with fractured ribs, a lacerated liver, and he already had a cervical spine condition from a previous injury, and that was made a lot worse by this incident. So let's talk a little bit about this crazy bull. The bull was named Fred. Now it turns out Fred was a younger bull, and he was considered what they called a cleanup bull, meaning that he was allowed to roam freely in the low cow district of the dairy barn so that he might impregnate cows that may not have been able to conceive through artificial insemination, which was the normal way to impregnate cows on Reinhardt's farm. So it's important to note here that Fred had never caused any problems on the farm. He had never threatened anybody, he had never injured any person or any other farm animal in his time there prior to this incident. It's also important to note that Fred was never chained up or caged or barricaded in any way. He was allowed to roam freely all around the barn. Fred's owner, Reinhardt, testified that none of his bulls had ever hurt anybody or threatened any other animal or person. So Larry was hurt pretty bad, and he and his wife both sued Reinhardt and John to recover damages because of the injuries. They sued on the grounds of strict liability and negligence. That's important. Both strict liability and negligence. The appellate courts in New York are fairly consistent in applying a common law vicious propensity rule to determine whether or not the owners of animals are liable for injuries caused by those animals. This rule basically states that the owner must have known of a vicious propensity prior to the incident in order for them to be found liable. If they are found liable, strict liability attaches. So Reinhart, the farmer, moved for summary judgment. In this case, reasoning that Reinhard didn't know that Larry would even be on the farm that day or working in the dairy barn, and John was unaware of Fred's presence in the barn. The court determined that Reinhard was not liable for Larry's injuries unless he knew or should have known of the bull's vicious propensity. Based on the facts that I've outlined here, the court found no evidence that Reinhart would ever have known that Fred would engage in such a behavior as to injure John. It was well established by testimony that Fred had never injured any other person or animal or behaved in any hostile or threatening manner. So to contradict this, the plaintiff provided an expert commentary who was a professor of animal science, and he described bulls and in particular breeding bulls as generally dangerous and vicious animals. And he said that Reinhard should have restrained that bull or warned Larry that the bull was present. But the court found that you can't just say that a particular breed of a particular animal is knowingly vicious or dangerous. According to the court, there has to be some history of behavior that would suggest that an animal is dangerous. So all of that addressed strict liability and that portion of Larry's claim. But he also made a claim of negligence. What the court did then with those allegations or that cause of action is they referred back to a case that they referred to as Collier. So I will leave a link for this case in the show notes below, along with a link for the Collier case. But the Collier case established that the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known that the animal's vicious propensities would be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities. It basically says that once this knowledge is established, the owner faces strict liability. So what the court said was negligence won't apply in the case of an injury caused by a domestic animal. It's either strict liability or no liability, black or white. They went on to explain further that vicious propensities can be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice. Which basically means that Fred would have had to have acted badly in the past prior to injuring Larry, and Reinhart would have had to know about that prior incident in order for there to be liability and damages against Reinhardt so let's talk a little bit about vicious propensities and what that really means in New York. It certainly doesn't mean just a dog bite or just an attack by Fred the Bull. The court said, in addition, an animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but what nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm can be found to have vicious propensities, albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit. So that's a pretty important statement. What they're saying is that if an animal caused an injury to someone, there must have been evidence to show that the owner knew that the animal had a propensity to behave in such a manner to have caused that injury. So that doesn't just mean a dog bite. It could also mean, perhaps, that the dog routinely runs around while he is on a rope or a chain and tends to circle a human being and ties their legs up, causing them to fall over. If the owner is aware that their dog does this on a regular basis, that owner could be found strictly liable for injuries to a person if they had walked within the range of that rope or chain and the dog ran circles around them and that person was caused to fall. The word proclivity is important here. If you own an animal of any kind and you believe that animal has a proclivity to act in such a way that it might cause injury or harm to another person in New York, you could be found strictly liable. Now let's clarify further and see what the court had to say about Fred. Well, you'll recall that he had never attacked any farm animal or human being before September 27, 2001. He had always moved unrestrained within the limits of the Barnes Low Cow District, and he came in contact with other other farm animals, other workers, and members of Reinhardt's own family without any incidents whatsoever. Because of this lack of proclivity, the court decided that Larry was unable to recover damages in this case. Now it's important to note here that the plaintiff brought in that expert, the professor I mentioned earlier, and that the professor said, Hey, you know, bulls are pretty dangerous animals, especially if they're used for breeding. Therefore, Reinhard should have known that this animal was dangerous. So let's take that to an extreme. Let's say, well, this isn't even an extreme, but let's take this just to another level. Let's say, or let's examine the history of pit bulls. So pit bulls are commonly referred to as a very dangerous dog for the most part because of the injuries that they tend to inflict can be really severe. So if an expert were to say that even though the owner of a pit bull had never known of any incidents with that pit bull, by virtue of it being a pit bull, which is a very dangerous dog, they could be found strictly liable as well, according to the professor's logic. Well, the court said that's not really the case. One of the defense attorneys I work with has described this theory in New York as a dog is allowed to be a dog in New York State, and Fred is allowed to be a bull under that philosophy. However, it appears that one bad move by Fred or any dog instantly establishes a propensity or a proclivity to be dangerous. And once this is established, that owner of that animal knows it's established, then strict liability applies for any subsequent incident that may occur. And this is why in New York, the rules regarding dog bite claims are commonly referred to as the one bite rule. Now, clearly, based on the circumstances of everything we've talked about so far, this moniker is an oversimplification of these common law theories because they don't just include dog bites but other behavior as well. So there are some dissenting theories against this analysis of the one bite rule in New York and strict liability. The argument relates to the restatement second of torts, and in this restatement it suggests that even if an animal owner does not know that the animal's species lends itself to the potential to behave badly, that that owner still has a duty of care to ensure that the animal does not cause injury to others. They will argue that the negligence rule should apply in such cases. This theory is based on the fact that some animals are naturally more dangerous than others and that the owners of those animals should take due care to ensure that those animal breeds or species do not pose a threat to other human beings. So, in short, some believe that the rules in New York are antiquated, archaic, and outdated. If you have an opinion on the current rules in New York as it relates to dog bites, please leave a note in the comments. I'm going to give you another example. Let's take rattlesnakes. Now everybody knows that rattlesnakes are dangerous. I don't know anybody who owns a rattlesnake as a pet, but let's say for argument's sake, someone does. If the owner of that rattlesnake lets the snake out into the public and it's hiding in the bushes one day when a pedestrian walks by and the snake lurches out and bites that pedestrian, what do we make of a case like that under New York's one bite rule? If that snake had never been aggressive or bitten anybody in the past, would that absolve the snake owner from liability? It appears that under New York law it would. The important takeaway here is that this theory is not limited and the behavior of an animal is accepted as evidence of a vicious propensity even though no actual bite took place. For example, if the dog has a proclivity to chase people or do other things that could be dangerous, like jump up on people and knock them over. If there is that sort of behavior in the animal's past and it can be proven, then strict liability will apply to your policy holder. So if you're an adjuster handling liability claims, you're going to be seeing a lot of dog bite claims, especially if you are involved in homeowners' claims. Dog bite claims or animal claims in general need to be treated carefully because of the antiquated rules in New York State. Thanks for joining us on the Art of Adjusting Podcast, where we talk about life as an insurance adjuster. Hit that subscribe button real quick and tell all of your adjuster friends to check this out as well. For independent adjusting services, go to www.autin.claims. And for anyone interested in working as an independent liability adjuster, go to the contact us tab to join our roster. So this wraps up another Art of Adjusting podcast. If you enjoyed this podcast or this episode, please give us five stars and a review. It does help the algorithm pick us up. In the meantime, you can contact me at theartofadjusting.com for consulting and training purposes.