"For all the faults of modern tort law, and they are many, I do not think that this attempt to cling to the uncertainties of a distant era will work out well," Judge Smith wrote on behalf of himself and two other dissenters from a four-judge decision that Fred's owner was not liable for the carpenter's injuries. "Why should a person hit by a subway train be able to recover and one hit by a breeding bull be left without a remedy?"

The majority essentially adopted an Appellate Division, Third Department, rule — and implicitly rejected First and Second Department precedent — in holding that absent any indication that Reinhardt Jahnke had reason to suspect Fred's violent propensity, the Otsego County dairy farmer could not be held liable.

Judge Smith would have embraced a common law precept under the Restatement of Torts that holds owners of domestic animals responsible for negligently failing to prevent the animal from causing an injury.

Court records show that Fred was an 18-month-old "cleanup" bull who was allowed to wander freely around the cow barn in hopes he would impregnate those who had failed to conceive through artificial insemination.

Before Sept. 27, 2001, Fred had never bothered anyone, at least any human. But on that day, when Mr. Bard went into the barn to do some work, Fred charged. Even without horns, the 1,400-pound bull inflicted considerable damage.

The Third Department, consistent with a 2003 holding, Shaw v. Burgess, 303 AD2d 857, held that absent a showing that a domestic animal had vicious propensities, a plaintiff could not recover for injuries caused by the animal. It specifically rejected rulings in both the First and Second departments that permitted recovery on a broader, enhanced duty theory of negligence.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Third Department in an opinion by Judge Susan Phillips Read joined by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick and Victoria A. Graffeo.

"We have never held that male domestic animals kept for breeding or female domestic animals caring for their young are dangerous as a class," Judge Read noted. "We decline to do so now, or otherwise to dilute our traditional rule under the guise of a companion common-law cause of action for negligence."

The majority stood by its 2004 ruling in Collier v. Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, which established criteria for inferring that an animal had vicious propensities and therefore imposing strict liability — a prior act that gave the owner notice, evidence that the animal had been known to growl or behave in a threatening manner, whether the animal is normally restrained and similar factors.

"[F]red had never attacked any farm animal or human being before September 27, 2001," Judge Read wrote. "He had always moved unrestrained within the limits of the barn's low cow district, regularly coming into contact with other farm animals, farm workers and members of the Jahnke family without incident or hint of hostility. He had never acted in a way that put others at risk of harm. As a result, Bard cannot recover under our traditional rule."

The majority also barred recovery under the Restatement of Torts.

Judge Smith said that with yesterday's ruling, the Court of Appeals became the first state high court to reject the restatement principle.

"I think that is a mistake," he wrote. "It leaves New York with an archaic, rigid rule, contrary to fairness and common sense, that will probably be eroded by ad hoc exceptions."

Judge Smith, joined by Judges George Bundy Smith and Albert M. Rosenblatt, cited Missouri Judge Holstein's 1991 decision in Duren v. Kunkel, 814 SW2d 935. In that case, a bull was negligently driven through an area where there was fresh blood on the ground and it attacked.

"In such a case, we could either deny recovery to a deserving plaintiff, despite negligence more blatant than what Jahnke is accused of here, or we could invent a 'mother dog' exception or a 'fresh blood' exception to the rule adopted in this case," Judge Smith wrote. "I think it would be wiser to follow the Restatement rule."

John Scarzafava of Oneonta appeared for Mr. Bard. Thomas J. Hickey of Binghamton argued for Mr. Jahnke.