CRAWFORD, J. The single issue raised by this appeal is whether we should change the common-law rule requiring proof of a dog owner’s negligence as the sole basis for liability for personal injuries inflicted by the dog. In the face of longstanding precedent, both in Vermont and in the United States in general, we decline to change the substantive law by judicial decision.
The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the strict liability claim on the ground that Vermont precedent has long required proof of negligence to recover against a dog owner for damages caused by his or her dog. Godeau v. Blood, 52 Vt. 251 (1880). See Hillier v. Noble, 142 Vt. 552, 556, 458 A.2d 1101, 1104 (1983); Carr v. Case, 135 Vt. 524, 525, 380 A.2d 91, 93 (1977); Davis v. Bedell, 123 Vt. 441, 442-43, 194 A.2d 67, 68 (1963); Worthen v. Love, 60 Vt. 285, 286, 14 A. 461, 461 (1888).
In limiting recovery to cases of negligence, the dog-bite cases fall within the normal parameters of our tort law. O. Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 163 (Little, Brown & Co. 1946) (1881)(“ the defendant must have had at least a fair chance of avoiding the infliction of harm before he becomes answerable for such a consequence of his conduct.”)
These principles are generally followed in the United States. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 23 (2010). The overwhelming majority of those states that have adopted strict liability for dog bites have done so only by statute.
We see no reason to single out dog ownership for treatment that is different from that we apply to other human pursuits. If a change were warranted, it should be left to the Legislature. We are not prepared to depart from long-held principles of negligence to create a new field of strict liability.
Affirmed.
SCOVT note on strict liability at common law in Vermont.
The Court today reaffirms its early rejection of strict liability in dog bite cases, noting that “With the exception of ultra-hazardous activities such as blasting and keeping dangerous animals, there is no liability without a breach of a duty of care based on the defendant’s conduct.” Martin v. Christman, 2014 VT 55, ¶ 10.
The doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities is a comparatively recent one in the law. See Bosley v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 127 Vt. 581, 582-85, 255 A.2d 671, 672-74 (1969). In Vermont the only recognized application of the doctrine involves blasting.
Here is a brief history.
The doctrine of absolute liability was jettisoned in Vermont as early as 1833 in the case of Lapham v. Curtis, 5 Vt. 371.
In Goupiel v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 94 Vt. 337, 343, 111 A. 346, a case involving a railroad torpedo, the Vermont Court rejected strict liability as a general doctrine.
Goupiel was recognized as good law as late as 1958, in Thompson v. Green Mtn. Power Corp., 120 Vt. 478, 482, 144 A.2d 786 (1958), a case involving dynamite and chickens. The Court said that the doctrine of absolute liability has not been accepted in this jurisdiction, citing Goupiel v. Grand Trunk R. Co., supra, 94 Vt. at page 343, 111 A. at page 348.
In Malloy v. Lane Construction Corporation, 123 Vt. 500, 194 A.2d 398 (1963) the Court overruled Goupiel v. Grand Truck Ry. Co., and adopted the doctrine of absolute liability in its application to the blasting operations. There “The shock waves of a blasting operation, travelling through air and ground, damaged the plaintiffs' dwelling house, according to their writ. The defendant construction company is named as the responsible agency, but its acts are not condemned as wrongful or negligent.” 194 A2d at 398-99. The Court accepted plaintiff’s’ argument that they ought not to be barred from recovery for their damage because there were no reasonable measures, short of abandoning the operation, that would have prevented injury to their property.
These principles are generally followed in the United States. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 23 (2010). The overwhelming majority of those states that have adopted strict liability for dog bites have done so only by statute.
We see no reason to single out dog ownership for treatment that is different from that we apply to other human pursuits. If a change were warranted, it should be left to the Legislature. We are not prepared to depart from long-held principles of negligence to create a new field of strict liability.
Affirmed.
SCOVT note on strict liability at common law in Vermont.
The Court today reaffirms its early rejection of strict liability in dog bite cases, noting that “With the exception of ultra-hazardous activities such as blasting and keeping dangerous animals, there is no liability without a breach of a duty of care based on the defendant’s conduct.” Martin v. Christman, 2014 VT 55, ¶ 10.
The doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities is a comparatively recent one in the law. See Bosley v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 127 Vt. 581, 582-85, 255 A.2d 671, 672-74 (1969). In Vermont the only recognized application of the doctrine involves blasting.
Here is a brief history.
The doctrine of absolute liability was jettisoned in Vermont as early as 1833 in the case of Lapham v. Curtis, 5 Vt. 371.
In Goupiel v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 94 Vt. 337, 343, 111 A. 346, a case involving a railroad torpedo, the Vermont Court rejected strict liability as a general doctrine.
Goupiel was recognized as good law as late as 1958, in Thompson v. Green Mtn. Power Corp., 120 Vt. 478, 482, 144 A.2d 786 (1958), a case involving dynamite and chickens. The Court said that the doctrine of absolute liability has not been accepted in this jurisdiction, citing Goupiel v. Grand Trunk R. Co., supra, 94 Vt. at page 343, 111 A. at page 348.
In Malloy v. Lane Construction Corporation, 123 Vt. 500, 194 A.2d 398 (1963) the Court overruled Goupiel v. Grand Truck Ry. Co., and adopted the doctrine of absolute liability in its application to the blasting operations. There “The shock waves of a blasting operation, travelling through air and ground, damaged the plaintiffs' dwelling house, according to their writ. The defendant construction company is named as the responsible agency, but its acts are not condemned as wrongful or negligent.” 194 A2d at 398-99. The Court accepted plaintiff’s’ argument that they ought not to be barred from recovery for their damage because there were no reasonable measures, short of abandoning the operation, that would have prevented injury to their property.
Surveying law elsewhere the Court said, “The use of dangerous explosives has been particularly subject to rules imposing strict liability….Negligence need not be demonstrated, but only the use of explosives and resulting damage.”
Malloy is the high water mark for Rylands v. Fletcher in Vermont.
In 1969 the Court expressly refused to extend the doctrine of strict or absolute liability, as recognized in Malloy, to accidents involving the transmission of electricity. Bosley v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 127 Vt. 581, 582-85, 255 A.2d 671, 672-74 (1969) .
In 1990 the Court also refused to extend the doctrine to public railroad crossings.Mobbs v. Cent. Vt. Ry., 155 Vt. 210, 218, 583 A.2d 566, 571 (1990).
In 2000 a case involve the escape of electicity from transmission lines came before the Court on a products liability theory. Darling v. Central Vt. Pub. Serv. Corp., 171 Vt. 565, 567, 762 A.2d 826, 828 (2000) Because the utility did not sell the electricity that allegedly caused the fire in this case, the Court held the doctrine of strict product liability did not apply. The issue of ultra-hazardous activities was not before the Court.
Malloy is the high water mark for Rylands v. Fletcher in Vermont.
In 1969 the Court expressly refused to extend the doctrine of strict or absolute liability, as recognized in Malloy, to accidents involving the transmission of electricity. Bosley v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 127 Vt. 581, 582-85, 255 A.2d 671, 672-74 (1969) .
In 1990 the Court also refused to extend the doctrine to public railroad crossings.Mobbs v. Cent. Vt. Ry., 155 Vt. 210, 218, 583 A.2d 566, 571 (1990).
In 2000 a case involve the escape of electicity from transmission lines came before the Court on a products liability theory. Darling v. Central Vt. Pub. Serv. Corp., 171 Vt. 565, 567, 762 A.2d 826, 828 (2000) Because the utility did not sell the electricity that allegedly caused the fire in this case, the Court held the doctrine of strict product liability did not apply. The issue of ultra-hazardous activities was not before the Court.
In Bosley the Court explained that strict liability has been confined to things or activities which are "extraordinary", or "exceptional", or "abnormal". (citing Prosser on Torts, 3rd Ed. Strict Liability, section 77, page 520. ) The Court noted the Restatement of Torts, section 519, 520 accepts the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 Hurl & C 744 (1865), but has limited it to an "ultra-hazardous activity", defined as one which "necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care" and "is not a matter of common usage."
~ Zphx
No comments:
Post a Comment