Rebecca Hudson was a dedicated kennel technician at a busy boarding facility, “Chasing Tails.” One afternoon, two bulldogs—Winston and Duke—that belonged to Paul and Leigh Ann Gravette, broke free from their pens. In a terrifying moment, the dogs attacked Rebecca while she was performing routine care. Rebecca suffered significant injuries, including bite lacerations and nerve damage.
Rebecca sued the Gravettes, claiming they were strictly liable under Tennessee’s dog-bite statute and that they were negligent in restraining their dogs. The trial court dismissed all claims—until Ponce Law stepped in and appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413, dog owners can be held strictly liable for bites only if their dogs have a history of viciousness. The trial court found no such prior incidents and granted summary judgment on the statutory claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed that part, agreeing that Rebecca could not meet the requirements for strict liability.
But the Court did not stop there.
Rebecca also brought a common law negligence claim, alleging carelessness in failing to safeguard the dogs. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of that claim. The appellate court held that the negligence claim was legally distinct from the statutory bite claim and deserved to proceed. In sum, just because strict liability failed does not mean negligence claims will fail too.
– Dog grooming, boarding, and daycare businesses now have clearer guidance: even without prior incidents, a negligence claim can survive if care was not adequate.
– Dog owners need to take responsibility for all dogs, regardless of breed or history. In Tennessee, failing to secure your dog could mean legal exposure even without a bite history.
– Kennel staff and exhibitors now have validated avenues for recourse if injured due to unsafe conditions or negligent handling.
– Affirmed: Owner liability under Tenn. Code § 44-8-413 requires proof of a dog’s vicious or dangerous history. No past incidents? No strict liability.
– Reversed: Common law negligence is a separate claim. You can allege the owner did not use reasonable care in securing their dog—and that claim can move forward.
– Remanded to the Hickman County Circuit Court for further proceedings on the negligence claim.
Rebecca Hudson et al. v. Paul Gravette et al. isn’t just another appellate case—it’s a landmark win that empowers individuals and staff injured by dogs. Courts recognize that responsibility and safety measures matter, even when a dog has no bite history.
Congrats again to Ponce Law for securing this precedent-setting victory!
Whether you’re a pet care professional or a dog owner, we can guide you through liability, negligence, and compensation strategies.
Call Ponce Law at 615‑244‑4321. Free consultations available.