## Facts

- Reinhardt Jahnke owned and operated a dairy farm with a large free-stall barn housing hundreds of cows.
- Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, came to the farm to assist another carpenter, John Timer, with repairs in the barn’s “low cow district.”
- Neither Bard nor Timer saw a bull during the initial walkthrough; Timer knew a bull existed on the farm but did not know a breeding bull was always present in that area.
- Bard began working on his knees removing bolts from cow mattresses; cows wandered into the area, which Bard considered normal and nonthreatening.
- A breeding bull (“Fred”) approached from behind and bellowed close to Bard; as Bard stood, the bull charged and repeatedly slammed him into stall piping.
- Bard suffered serious injuries; Bard and his wife sued Jahnke (and Timer) asserting strict liability and negligence.
- Plaintiffs offered expert testimony that breeding bulls are generally dangerous and prudent dairy practice would restrain or isolate such a bull.
- There was no evidence that Fred (or prior bulls on the farm) had previously threatened, charged, chased, or attacked any person or animal.

## Issues

1. Whether the owner of a domestic animal (a breeding bull) may be held strictly liable for injuries it causes absent proof that the owner knew or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities.
2. Whether a plaintiff may recover on a negligence theory for injuries caused by a domestic animal despite no evidence of known vicious propensities.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Jahnke.
- The court held that liability for harm caused by a domestic animal is determined solely by the rule requiring proof that the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities.
- Because the record contained no evidence that Jahnke had actual or constructive knowledge of Fred’s vicious propensities, strict liability failed as a matter of law.
- The court rejected a separate negligence theory (e.g., failure to restrain or warn), holding that such claims are not available absent proof of known vicious propensities.

## Legal Principles

- In New York, an owner’s liability for injuries caused by a domestic animal depends on proof that the animal had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of them.
- The vicious-propensities requirement applies to all domestic animals, including livestock such as breeding bulls.
- “Vicious propensities” include tendencies that may endanger others in the relevant situation and are not limited to overt ferocity, but they must be shown for the specific animal.
- Generalized evidence that a species or class of animals is dangerous does not substitute for proof that the particular animal exhibited dangerous behavior known (or knowable) to the owner.
- Plaintiffs may not avoid the vicious-propensities rule by pleading negligent handling, failure to restrain, or failure to warn when the required knowledge is not shown.

## Conclusion

The court held that injuries caused by a domestic animal are actionable against the owner only upon proof of the owner’s knowledge (actual or constructive) of the specific animal’s vicious propensities, and it barred negligence-based recovery in the absence of such proof, thereby sustaining summary judgment for the farm owner.


Bard v. Jahnke, 848 N.E.2d 463 (N.Y. 2006)