“I was bitten by a poisonous snake at a relative’s house. I did not know that the snake was even in the house. After I tried to retrieve a table tennis ball in a dark corner of their basement, the snake bit me. I needed to go to the hospital. The doctor injected me with anti-venom for the type of snake that bit me. I felt awful for months after this incident. Can I sue for my medical bills, lost wages, and personal injuries?”

Yes, you have a valid personal injury claim. Under New York law, recovering damages for an injury caused by wils animals versus domestic pets depends heavily on how the law classifies the animal involved.

While attacks by domestic pets—such as dogs, cats, or horses—require proof that the owner knew the animal was dangerous, injuries caused by wild animals are governed by a far stricter standard: absolute liability.

The Core Distinction: Domestic Animals vs. Wild Animals

In New York, animal bite and injury claims fall into two distinct legal categories:

  • Domestic Animals: Subject to strict liability, but only if the plaintiff can prove the animal had a known “vicious propensity” (scienter).
  • Wild Animals: Subject to absolute liability, where the owner or harborer is responsible for harm regardless of whether the animal ever exhibited dangerous tendencies in the past.

Understanding which standard applies to your case is the single most important factor in determining liability.

1. Domestic Animals: The Vicious Propensity Standard

For common household pets and livestock, New York Agriculture & Markets Law defines what qualifies as a domestic animal.

Under Agriculture & Markets Law § 108 and Agriculture & Markets Law § 370, domestic animals include dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, and raised poultry or rabbits.

The Strict Liability Requirement

Unlike many states where a pet owner can be sued under general common-law negligence (such as failing to close a gate or dropping a leash), New York courts have repeatedly held that strict liability is the sole remedy for injuries caused by domestic animals (Petrone v. Fernandez, 12 N.Y.3d 546 [2009]; Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 [2006]).

To prevail against the owner of a domestic animal, an injured plaintiff must prove two specific elements:

  1. The animal possessed a vicious propensity (a natural inclination or habitual tendency to act in a way that endangers people or property).
  2. The owner or harborer knew or should have known of those vicious propensities (Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 [2004]).

If a dog, cat, or horse has never displayed aggressive, threatening, or hazardous behavior prior to the incident, the owner is not responsible under New York law.

2. Wild Animals: Absolute Liability Under New York Law

When the injury is caused by a wild animal, the legal equation changes entirely.

Under New York law, anyone who owns, keeps, or harbors a wild animal is held to an absolute duty to prevent the animal from causing harm (Arbegast v. Board of Educ. of South New Berlin Cent. School, 65 N.Y.2d 161 [1985]; Stevens v. Hulse, 263 N.Y. 421 [1934]).

Qualities of a Wild Animal

A wild animal is any species that is not naturally domesticated or accustomed to living peacefully alongside humans. Common examples in legal precedent include:

  • Venomous or exotic snakes, reptiles, and constrictors.
  • Bears, lions, tigers, and exotic big cats.
  • Non-human primates (monkeys, chimpanzees).
  • Wild canine or feline hybrids.

Why You Do Not Need to Prove “Vicious Propensity”

In wild animal cases, New York courts take judicial notice of the dangerous nature of the species. Because the law takes notice that wild animals possess inherent dangers. The injured victim is not required to prove:

  • That the specific animal ever bit or attacked anyone before.
  • That the owner had notice or prior knowledge of aggressive behavior.
  • That the owner was negligent in how they caged, chained, or housed the animal.

If your relative harbored a poisonous snake in their home, they are absolutely liable for the injuries caused by that snake. It is legally irrelevant whether the snake was kept in a secure enclosure, whether it had been docile for years, or whether you accidentally stepped into its space. The mere fact that they kept a wild, venomous animal on the premises makes them responsible for the harm that resulted.

Who Is Responsible? Owners vs. Harborers

Liability in wild animal cases extends beyond the legal owner of the creature. Under New York precedent, anyone who harbors or keeps a wild animal on their property can be held strictly liable.Matthew H. v. County of Nassau, 131 A.D.3d 135.

  • Harboring Defined: “Harboring” means permitting the animal to be kept on the premises, treating it as part of the household, or providing for its care and shelter.
  • Property Owners and Co-Tenants: If a homeowner permits a family member or tenant to keep a dangerous wild animal on the property, the homeowner can face direct liability as a harborer of the animal.

Potential Defenses: Does Comparative Fault Apply?

Because wild animal liability is absolute, traditional defenses like “I didn’t know the snake was dangerous” or “I took reasonable precautions” are legally invalid. However, defendants may attempt to raise specific affirmative defenses under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR Article 14-A):

Implied Assumption of Risk vs. Express Assumption of Risk

  • Implied Assumption of Risk: If a victim voluntarily encounters a known risk (e.g., reaching into a clearly marked snake cage), a jury may consider comparative causation under CPLR 1411 to reduce—but not necessarily eliminate—the damages (Arbegast v. Board of Educ. of South New Berlin Cent. School, 65 N.Y.2d 161 [1985]).
  • No Notice / Unaware of Risk: In scenarios where you were retrieving a ping-pong ball in a dark corner and had no knowledge that a poisonous snake was present in the house, implied assumption of risk does not apply. You cannot assume a risk you were entirely unaware of.
  • Express Assumption of Risk: Unless you signed a written waiver or explicitly agreed to assume the risk of being near the venomous snake, the defense cannot bar your recovery.

Damages You Can Recover in a New York Wild Animal Injury Case

If you are injured by a wild animal or an exotic pet in New York, you are entitled to pursue full compensation for economic and non-economic losses, including:

  • Medical Bills. Emergency room costs, anti-venom treatment, hospital stays, follow-up physician visits, and physical therapy.
  • Lost Wages. Income lost during your recovery period or diminished future earning capacity.
  • Pain and Suffering. Compensation for physical pain, emotional distress, nerve damage, scarring, or long-term systemic health complications caused by venom or infection.

Key Takeaways

  • Domestic Animals. Require proof of a prior “vicious propensity” and proof that the owner knew about it (scienter).
  • Wild Animals. Carry absolute liability under New York law (Arbegast v. Board of Educ., 65 N.Y.2d 161; Stevens v. Hulse, 263 N.Y. 421). Victims do not need to prove prior attacks or owner negligence.
  • Premises Coverage. Homeowner’s or renter’s insurance policies cover injuries that occur at home or apartments, though specific exotic animal exclusions may apply.

By James Santner, Esq.

If you or a loved one have been injured by a wild animal, exotic pet, or domestic dog attack in New York, contact our office today for a free case evaluation. We handle personal injury claims on a contingency fee basis—you pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you.