Bard v. Jahnke

Reinhardt Jahnke (defendant) owned and operated a dairy farm. Jahnke permitted a breeding bull named Fred to roam freely in one area of the farm. This was Jahnke’s usual practice, and neither Fred nor any prior bull had ever threatened, attacked, or injured any person or farm animal. Jahnke’s son asked John Timer (defendant) to do some repair work in the area where Fred roamed. Timer asked Larry Bard (plaintiff) to assist him. Neither Jahnke nor anyone else at the farm knew which day Timer would show up to do the repairs or that Bard would be working with Timer. While Bard was working on the repairs, Fred charged Bard and injured him severely. Bard sued Jahnke and Timer. Bard presented expert testimony that bulls, and breeding bulls in particular, are generally dangerous animals. Bard argued that Jahnke should have restrained Fred or warned Bard about Fred’s presence. The trial court ruled that livestock owners had an enhanced duty of care to protect others. However, because Jahnke had not known Bard was on the property, Jahnke had not violated this duty. Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment to Jahnke. Bard appealed. The appellate division applied a different rule, holding that the vicious-propensities or one-bite rule that applied to injuries caused by dogs and cats also applied to livestock. This rule made owners strictly liable for injuries caused by animals known to have vicious or dangerous propensities. However, under this rule, Jahnke was still not liable because the evidence did not show that Jahnke had reason to believe that Fred had dangerous propensities. The New York Court of Appeals agreed to review the case.