Brent Seybolt sustained serious injuries when he was bitten on the face by a dog entrusted to the Wheelers.
A frequent visitor of the Wheelers' home, Seybolt was attempting to throw his hosts' young daughter into the swimming pool, when the animal knocked Seybolt to the ground and bit him near his eye on the right side of his face.
After spending nine days in the hospital, Seybolt was forced to endure a number of surgeries to correct blurred vision and swelling above the eye.
When Seybolt later filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Wheelers to recover damages, the Saratoga County Supreme Court denied Seybolt's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and the Wheelers' motion to dismiss the case.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, explaining that only custodians of domestic animals who know or should know of an animal's violent propensities, may be held liable for the harm the animal inflicts.
While such knowledge may be established in a number of ways -- such as with proof of a prior bite, or, evidence of past threatening or aggressive behavior (manifested in the form of growling, snapping or baring its teeth) -- "normal canine behavior," like barking and chasing other animals, will usually not suffice.
In response to Seybolt's allegation that the dog had exhibited past aggression, the Wheelers offered testimony that the dog only acted violently when provoked.
According to the AD3, since there were issues of fact as to the dog's vicious propensities and the Wheelers' notice thereof, the case needed to proceed to a formal hearing or trial.
If every dog has its day, this dog's day will likely be in court.
If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else's dog around.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Seybolt v. Wheeler