GOVT 280-001
Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592
Parties: Larry Bard, et al., Appellants, v. Reinhardt Jahnke, Individually and Doing Business as
Hemlock Valley Farms, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Counsel: John Scarzafava, for appellants. Thomas J. Hickey, for respondent.
Judges: Judge Read, Chief Judge Kaye, Judge Ciparick, and Judge Graffeo concur; Judge R.S.
Smith dissents, and Judge G.B. Smith and Rosenblatt concur in a separate opinion.
Procedural History: A plaintiff filed an action against the defendants to recover in negligence
and strict liability for injuries. The plaintiff was injured when he was attacked by the
defendant’s bull. He challenged an order of the Appellate Division (New York) which affirmed
a trial court order and granted the defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgement dismissing
the plaintiff’s complaint order under N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 108(7).
Summary of Facts: The plaintiff was brought on to work on the defendant’s barn. The
defendant’s bull, which was used for breeding purposes, was unrestrained in the barn. It never
hurt anyone or showed signs of hostility towards anyone before it attacked the plaintiff. The
plaintiff’s injuries that were sustained, according to an animal science expert, were from a very
vicious and dangerous animal. The trial court stated that the defendants were not liable because
the defendant did not know that the plaintiff and the other defendant were in the barn, while the
other defendant did not know the bull was in the barn.
Issues: Whether or not the order would be affirmed for a cross-motion summary due to
the defendant being liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Holding: The court held that the order of the intermediate appellate court would affirm the
trial court’s order that grants the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgement to dismiss
the injured party’s complaint.
Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592
Parties: Larry Bard, et al., Appellants, v. Reinhardt Jahnke, Individually and Doing Business as
Hemlock Valley Farms, Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Counsel: John Scarzafava, for appellants. Thomas J. Hickey, for respondent.
Judges: Judge Read, Chief Judge Kaye, Judge Ciparick, and Judge Graffeo concur; Judge R.S.
Smith dissents, and Judge G.B. Smith and Rosenblatt concur in a separate opinion.
Procedural History: A plaintiff filed an action against the defendants to recover in negligence
and strict liability for injuries. The plaintiff was injured when he was attacked by the
defendant’s bull. He challenged an order of the Appellate Division (New York) which affirmed
a trial court order and granted the defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgement dismissing
the plaintiff’s complaint order under N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 108(7).
Summary of Facts: The plaintiff was brought on to work on the defendant’s barn. The
defendant’s bull, which was used for breeding purposes, was unrestrained in the barn. It never
hurt anyone or showed signs of hostility towards anyone before it attacked the plaintiff. The
plaintiff’s injuries that were sustained, according to an animal science expert, were from a very
vicious and dangerous animal. The trial court stated that the defendants were not liable because
the defendant did not know that the plaintiff and the other defendant were in the barn, while the
other defendant did not know the bull was in the barn.
Issues: Whether or not the order would be affirmed for a cross-motion summary due to
the defendant being liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Holding: The court held that the order of the intermediate appellate court would affirm the
trial court’s order that grants the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgement to dismiss
the injured party’s complaint.
