Appellate reversal in horse negligence case

On January 6, 2011 the Appellate Division, Third Department reversed a lower court's denial of summary judgment in a case involving a collision between a vehicle and a horse.

The facts of the case are as follows: Plaintiff was driving on a public highway when her vehicle collided with a horse owned by defendant.  Seeking to recover damages for the injuries she sustained, plaintiff commenced a negligence action.  After joinder of issue and discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that he could not be held liable for ordinary negligence and he had no notice of the horse's propensity to escape from its stall and roam free. Supreme Court denied the motion.

The Court in reversing the decision cited various cases for the proposition that ordinary negligence
does not lie against the owner of a domestic animal which causes injury and stated that the plaintiff must meet the burden of showing strict liability which requires evidence that the owner knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities, see Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550 [2009] and Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 601 [2006].  As the plaintiff's complaint pled ordinary negligence, and there was no evidence in the record that the horse in question had a propensity to escape the confines of defendant's barn or pasture and roam free the court reversed the denial of defendant's summary judgment motion.