“A 5-year-old girl bitten by a Rottweiler puppy in a Petco store cannot sue the pet supplies chain because it has a policy of allowing its customers to bring their pets into its stores, an acting New York Supreme Court justice has ruled, noting the policy reflects ‘an industry-wide standard’ designed for the benefit of pet store customers. The summary judgment ruling also exonerated the owner of the Rottweiler, finding he had no reason to suspect that the 8-month-old puppy had a ‘vicious propensity.'” Plaintiffs say they’re going to appeal, though. (Daniel Wise, “Bid Challenging Pet Supplies Retailer’s Pet-Friendly Policy Fails”, New York Law Journal, Aug. 8). Earlier: Dec. 14, 2003.
7 Comments
in todays lesson we learn not to approach dogs we dont know
I am not a lawyer, so I realize that it is impossible for me to understand the law. However, while I agree that Petco should not be held liable, I cannot understand how the dog’s owner escape responsibility. He/she should have had the dog on a leash, and at the first growl should have restrained the puppy.
For Joel W:
From the article:
At the Petco they encountered Coughlin, who had his puppy, Lucy, on a leash, as required by store policy.
Christian asked Coughlin if the two children could pet Lucy, and, with his permission, they began to do so. After several minutes, while the two adults chatted, Lucy lunged at Christian’s daughter and bit her on the upper lip, tearing off a piece of flesh which required plastic surgery to correct.
It seems that the owner DID have the puppy on a leash and that the girl AND her parent approached the dog. I’m not a lawyer either but I would THINK that the rub would be in deciding if the act of the owner chatting with the girl’s parent constitutes negligence on the owner’s part.
Perhaps with additional details not covered in the article it was decided that it did not, in fact, constitute negligence.
Accidents DO happen.
Joel –
Well, the article doesn’t really go into details on the defense of the owner, I could imagine a defense of the 5-year old initiating the conflict with the dog (I’ve seen my share of young childen pull a dogs/cats tail and get a bite/scratch out of it). Just because a bite occured doesn’t mean the owner was in the wrong.
To be liable in tort an injury must be foreseeable. With domesticated(nonwild) animal pets the owner generally cannot foresee that an injury might occur unless there has been a prior attack by the animal or other obvious signs that it is dangerous. Such animals are not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. With no foreseeability, there is no negligence as in this case.
The truth is, with no deep pockets, there is no liability (or at least no reason to go to court).
The truth is, with no deep pockets, there is no liability (or at least no reason to go to court).
We have a winner!