Comments
ANIMAL WATCH - Within the past few months, alone, a shocking number of reported violent Pit Bull attacks have caused inestimable injury and far too many deaths of humans and animals all over the U.S., with children, the elderly and pets being the most common victims (See short list below.)
This is an increasing tragedy, with no end in sight due to the intentional proliferation and promotion of the breed as pets and the “No-Kill” movement which forbids euthanizing dogs of this breed-type, even after an attack.
However, determining liability under state laws varies in each U.S. jurisdiction. --“that is, establishing the difference between an accidental or totally unintentional act or omission; or carelessness by the owner of a dog known to be dangerous, who does not take due diligence to avoid an incident – which has been difficult to prove, largely because of a NY judge’s decision in 2006,” says Los Angeles Dog Bite Attorney Ken Phillips, on his latest blog post on this topic, titled:
Blockbuster Case Gives New York Dog Bite Victims 2/3rds Cup of Justice ).
The renown legal champion for victims in dog attack cases now highlights the possibility of change: The Flanders’ case has the potential to influence reforms in other states and improve dog-bite law throughout the country:
“On April 17, 2025, the highest court in New York issued a blockbuster decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow that fixed a grave error it made in 2006. That year, the court ruled there was no such thing as dog owner negligence. With this new ruling, dog bite victims in New York can now seek compensation under two legal theories: the ancient one-bite rule and negligence,” he states.
“But most Americans have a third option too, which is: state dog-bite statutes. To give New Yorkers equal protection, the Legislature must enact a strong, well-drafted dog bite law.”
THE NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE
“Here's another thing about Flanders,” Phillips writes:
“The Flanders case has national significance because it also holds that negligence and the one bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability. Many state courts and legislatures (not California) have mistakenly treated them as one and the same.”
“The New York Court of Appeals’ emphasized that the one-bite rule is entirely different than the negligence doctrine. The one--bite rule is based on what the animal actually did in the past, while the negligence doctrine focuses on what might happen in the future.”
Ignoring signs that a dog might bite a person in the future can result in liability under both theories, but the one-bite rule demands proof that something similar already happened and the defendant knew it or should have known it. Establishing negligence does not require a prior similar act.”
“Therefore, the Flanders case has the potential to influence reforms in other states and improve dog-bite law throughout the country.”
THE ”DOG-BITE KING”
Phillips is nationally recognized for his expertise in dog-bite law, most recently for the “Meat Grinder” case in Los Angeles, in which a Pit Bull known to be dangerous was allowed to be adopted from a City of L.A. shelter and seriously injured the elderly mother of the adopter. (See: Pit Bull ‘Meat Grinder’ Attack Lawsuit Filed Against City of LA for Mauling by Dangerous Adopted Dog )
But long before that, Phillips’ experience and expertise in deciphering the elements of attacks had made him a leader in representing victims who have suffered inestimable damage or lost their ability to function and/or work in order to survive economically after the savage acts of, most commonly, Pit Bull Terriers. a dog that was originally used in ancient times to fight bulls and bears in arenas for entertainment and still is bred and trained for one purpose – to fight against another animal, usually a dog of the same breed-- in an organized gambling event. This requires specific innate traits of aggression, called the “bloodlines,” that are carefully cultivated and preserved.
(See: 190 Pit Bulls Seized, Ex-Football Star LeShon Johnson Indicted on Federal Dog Fighting Charges )
Phillips writes, “My belief is that Bard (the prior case) was greatly influenced by the pit bull lobby, even though the animal in question in Bard was a bull, not a “pit bull.” The Bard court was swayed by the ridiculous but oft-repeated accusation that it is "discriminatory" to judge animals by their breed, as opposed to the past conduct of any particular member of the breed.
Consider the following quote from Bard (emphasis added):
"We have never, however, held that particular breeds or kinds of domestic animals are dangerous, and therefore when an individual animal of the breed or kind causes harm, its owner is charged with knowledge of vicious propensities."
"Oh, really?, Phillips quips, So an animal from a breed that has been meticulously culled to conform to certain standards should not be judged by its adherence to those standards? Hmmm, time to change the channel when the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show comes on.”
“New York is famous for its ultra-liberal “live and let live” attitude,” he said. “Unfortunately, such an attitude means that one must ignore the bad traits in people and their pets. Focusing on dogs, the high court previously strove to confirm its liberal bonaides by refusing to regard breeding bulls as being dangerous because, I believe, it would have meant acknowledging that pit bulls are even more dangerous. That acknowledgment would have created a precedent that would have affected pit bulls and aroused the ire of the pit bull lobby.”
On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 12:29 PM Kenneth M. Phillips <[email protected]> wrote:
Here's another thing about Flanders:
The Flanders case has national significance because it also holds that negligence and the one-bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability. Many state courts and legislatures (not California) have mistakenly treated them as one and the same.
The New York Court of Appeals’ emphasized that the one-bite rule is entirely different than the negligence doctrine. The one-bite rule is based on what the animal actually did in the past, while the negligence doctrine focuses on what might happen in the future.
Ignoring signs that a dog might bite a person in the future can result in liability under both theories, but the one bite rule demands proof that something similar already happened and the defendant knew it or should have known it. Establishing negligence does not require a prior similar act.
Therefore, the Flanders case has the potential to influence reforms in other states and improve dog bite law throughout the country.
PIT BULL ATTACKS ARE A MAJOR PROBLEM IN THE U.S.
Here is a very short list of just a few of the most prominent recent attacks nationwide:
📆 Pit Bull Attack Reports – March to April 2025
- 📰 New York Post – April 15, 2025
Long Island girl, 9, suffers extensive injuries after being mauled by neighbor's pit bull: 'He could've killed me' - 📰 KEYE / KHOU – April 4, 2025
Pit bull fatally attacks infant, highlighting risks of unsupervised interactions - 📰 Animals 24-7 – April 6, 2025
Pit bulls kill two more babies & a 43-year-old man in first days of April - 📰 CBS News – March 22, 2025
Woman, dog saved from pit bull attack in West Philadelphia - 📰 The Columbus Dispatch – March 7, 2025
Family of Columbus 8-year-old mauled by dogs 'shattered' by vicious attack - 📰 WSYX – April 24, 2025
Owner of dogs in Columbus attack fought 'dangerous' designation of pit bull - 📰 KSAT – February 28, 2025
Pit bull attacks, kills neighbor’s dog in northeast Bexar County
SANTA MONICA PIT BULL KILLS TINY POODLE, OWNER IDENTIFIED
Police have identified the owner of the pit bull that fatally attacked an 11-year old toy poodle, named Dublin in Santa Monica, CA, last week while he was walking with his owners.
SMPD Say They've Identified Owner of Dog Involved in Fatal Attack, Cite Civil Process
The Santa Monica Police Department says it has identified the owner of the Pit Bull that was “allegedly responsible” for the fatal mauling of the 11-year-old toy poodle, named Dublin, last week, but noted the case may fall under civil, not criminal, jurisdiction.
“The department issued a statement Thursday acknowledging community outrage over the fatal attack but addressed limitations in enforcement under current law,” according to MSN.
The Santa Monica Police Department issued a statement that it has identified the owner of the Pit Bull allegedly responsible for mauling the 11-year-old toy poodle to death last week in front of its owners and members of the public, but noted the case “may fall under civil, not criminal, jurisdiction.”
The SMPD issued a statement acknowledging community outrage over the incident but described “limitations in enforcement” under current law. (There was no indication of a law governing owning a dangerous animal and taking it out in public.)
# # #
