Changing the Law Through Strategy: Flanders v. Goodfellow and the Power of Litigation Tactics

The legal system often prides itself on predictability. Lawyers and clients alike rely on established rules to guide decision-making. But sometimes, the law simply doesn't work the way it should anymore. When that happens, change is necessary—and change doesn’t happen by accident. It requires strategy, timing, and a clear understanding of how courts approach their role in shaping the law.

The New York Court of Appeals' recent decision in Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025 NY Slip Op 02261 [Ct App 2025]) is a textbook example of how careful legal strategy can move the law forward while respecting its roots.

The Opportunity for Change

In Flanders, the Court of Appeals had to revisit its rule precluding negligence claims against the owners of domestic animals that cause personal injuries. Lower courts had followed the precedent because that is what precedent demands. But the attorneys in Flanders, if not the personal injury bar, recognized that the issue presented a unique opportunity.

Rather than merely arguing that the rule was misapplied, the attorneys attacked the rule itself. They built a record that showed how the old standard caused uncertainty, unfairness, and inconsistency with broader legal principles. They did not ask the Court to change the law in a vacuum. They showed that the legal landscape had evolved—and that New York needed to evolve with it.

In short, they gave the Court the grounds to change the law by showing that doing so would not disrupt stability but would restore coherence.

Why Strategy Mattered

Challenging precedent is rarely easy. It requires a willingness to lose a battle in the hopes of winning the war. Courts are understandably cautious about reversing course. To succeed, litigants must provide a clear, manageable framework for the Court to adopt.

In Flanders, the strategy was sophisticated but straightforward:

• Frame the case narrowly. By focusing on the specific flaws in the old rule, the attorneys limited the risk of unintended consequences.
• Present a clear replacement rule. They did not leave the Court guessing about what should come next.
• Demonstrate practical problems. They showed how maintaining the old rule led to real-world injustice, not just theoretical concerns.
• Highlight broader trends. They pointed to how other jurisdictions addressed similar issues, showing that change would not leave New York isolated.

Without this strategic framing, the Court could have easily brushed the case aside as an ordinary dispute. Instead, the Court had both the invitation and the legal tools to update the law.

Lessons for Future Cases

Flanders is not just a story about a single case. It highlights broader truths about litigation and appellate practice:

• Timing matters. Not every case is a good vehicle to change the law. Part of effective advocacy is knowing when the stars are aligned—and when they aren’t.
• Record building is critical. You can’t raise new arguments for the first time on appeal. Strategic thinking starts at the trial court level.
• Appellate experience is invaluable. Lawyers familiar with appellate dynamics know how to frame arguments that appellate courts can and want to address.

Even when the goal isn't to change the law, understanding how courts approach their institutional role can help litigants shape stronger, more persuasive arguments at every stage of litigation.

How We Can Help

At The Law Offices of Seth M. Weinberg, PLLC, we understand that litigation is not just about applying the law as it exists—it's about recognizing when the law is evolving and positioning our clients to benefit. Whether you are looking to challenge an outdated precedent, preserve your record for future appeals, or simply frame your legal arguments to maximize settlement leverage, we can help.

Contact us to discuss how we can work with you to shape the law—and your litigation outcomes—through thoughtful strategy and experienced advocacy.