A civil statute of limitations is a law that places a strict deadline on your right to file a personal injury lawsuit in state court. The clock usually starts ticking on the day a victim is injured. But each state has its own deadlines, and even within one state, different kinds of cases are subject to different rules.
Florida’s statute of limitations has two deadlines that could be relevant to your dog-bite claim:
(Fla. Stat. § 95.11 (2023).)
If you try to file your lawsuit after the relevant deadline has passed, the court will almost certainly dismiss it, unless the circumstances call for a rare extension of the filing deadline. Especially if you’re concerned about the timing of a potential lawsuit, you should consider consulting with an attorney familiar with Florida dog-bite and other personal injury cases.
Florida dog owners are subject to one law that covers bites and another law that covers other kinds of injuries caused by their dogs. Both of these laws impose strict liability on owners (although, as covered below, owners sometimes have a defense).
Owners’ liability for bite injuries. A Florida dog owner is liable for bite injuries if:
(Fla. Stat. § 767.04 (2023).)
Florida law says that owners can be held liable for bite injuries “regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness." This rule makes Florida a strict liability state when it comes to dog bites, separating it from states that use a so-called “one-bite” rule. (Under a one-bite rule, owners are only liable if they knew their dog might be dangerous.)
Owners’ liability for non-bite injuries. Florida also has a law that applies to injuries other than bites—it states that owners are “liable for any damage done by their dogs” to a person, a domestic animal, or livestock. This law is worded differently from the law covering bite injuries, but Florida courts have ruled that it also imposes strict liability on owners for non-bite injuries caused by their dogs. (Fla. Stat. § 767.01 (2023); Fannin v. Hunter, 331 So. 3d 793 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021).)
Negligence cases against non-owners. Only owners are strictly liable for dog-attack injuries in Florida. But sometimes a victim might have a good argument that someone other than the owner (for example, a dog-walker or the dog-owner’s landlord) is responsible for their injuries. In a situation like that, a victim can bring a negligence case against the person (or people) who were at fault. To prove negligence, a plaintiff (the person suing) needs to show that the defendant was responsible for the dog when the incident occurred, and that their failure to take reasonable steps to protect people from the dog led to the plaintiff’s injuries. (Tran v. Bancroft, 648 So. 2d 314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995).)
Florida’s law gives owners three potential defenses when they’re sued for a bite or other injury caused by their dog.
The victim was negligent. Even under a strict liability system, a victim can still do things like provoke or startle a dog that make them partially responsible for their own injuries. Under Florida law, the amount of damages a liable owner must pay will be reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage of blame assigned to the injured person. (A nonowner who gets sued for negligence has the same opportunity to show that the victim was partially or wholly responsible for their own injuries.)
The victim was trespassing. Florida law requires an injured person to be "lawfully" in the place where the bite occurred in order to recover damages. For example, invited guests and mail carriers are lawfully on a homeowner’s property. But a person who is on private property without an invitation, and with no legal reason to be there, is trespassing and therefore not entitled to collect damages if they’re hurt by the homeowner’s dog.
The owner displayed “Bad Dog” signs. Even someone who’s lawfully on a dog owner’s property may not be able to recover damages under Florida’s strict liability rule. Owners who prominently display an easily readable sign that includes the words “Bad Dog” can’t be held liable unless the victim is under six years of age, or the owner’s negligence contributed to the victim’s injuries.
(Fla. Stat. § 767.04 (2023); Parsons v. Culp 328 So. 3d 341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021).)
In addition to its civil liability rules, Florida has other laws designed to protect the public from dangerous and aggressive dogs.
These rules include a hearing system for determining if a dog is dangerous. In the most serious cases, dogs that are classified as dangerous can be euthanized. Otherwise, the owner is required to take steps—like posting warning signs and making sure the dog is securely confined—to make sure the dog doesn’t pose a threat to anyone. If a dangerous dog attacks a person or a domestic animal, the owner can be charged with a misdemeanor.
An owner can also be charged with a misdemeanor for an attack even if their dog hasn’t been officially declared dangerous. This penalty only applies in very serious cases where:
(Fla. Stat. § 767.10-16 (2023).)
If you find yourself on either side of a dog-bite claim, or you’re an owner facing another issue involving your pet, it’s crucial to know how the law applies to your situation. If you have questions about your case, you should speak with an experienced attorney with experience in similar cases.
]]>On the other side of things, if you’ve been bitten by a dog you may not be able to sue if you were trespassing or provoked the animal. This article will tell you what you need to understand about dog-bite lawsuits in Arizona. We’ll also tell Arizona dog owners what they should know about the state’s approach to pets that might be vicious or aggressive.
If you’ve been injured by a dog in Arizona, you may be able to file a civil lawsuit against the owner based on:
These approaches apply in different situations and demand different kinds of proof from plaintiffs. Here’s how each option works.
Arizona’s dog-bite laws use a strict liability standard. An owner can be held liable any time their dog bites someone, even if they didn’t have any reason to think their dog could be dangerous. That distinguishes Arizona from states that follow a so-called "one-bite rule", which is more forgiving of owners who didn’t know their dog might hurt someone. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1025 (2023).)
The same strict liability standard applies to injuries caused by a dog that’s “at large.” That’s the legal term in Arizona for a dog that’s not on a leash, and also not confined to an enclosed area like a fenced-in yard. If an at-large dog causes an injury, the owner or the person who was responsible for the dog (for example, a dog-walker or a friend who was pet-sitting) can be held liable. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1020 (2023).)
Importantly, the law covering at-large dogs applies to injuries other than bites. For example, it would cover a sprained ankle or broken wrist suffered by someone who was knocked off their feet by a large and overly-friendly dog. It also applies to property damage caused by the at-large dog.
Arizona’s strict liability laws don’t cover every situation in which someone is injured by a dog. For example, they don’t address situations where someone is injured—but not bitten—by a dog that isn’t at large. What happens if, for example, that overly-friendly dog was on a leash when it knocked you over and caused your broken wrist?
In a situation like that you wouldn’t be able to file a lawsuit based specifically on Arizona’s dog-bite laws—which means that strict liability wouldn’t apply. Instead, you’d need to file a lawsuit claiming that your injury was caused by negligence on the part of the dog’s owner or handler.
Unlike with strict liability, proving negligence requires you to show that the person responsible for the dog didn’t take the precautions they should have to protect people and property from the animal. That might include, for example, showing that the dog hadn’t been properly restrained, or that the person handling the dog was focused on their phone and ignoring their dog’s aggressive behavior.
In Arizona the authorities can classify a dog as either “aggressive” or “dangerous” based on its behavior or its propensity for attacking and endangering people. Let’s look at the legal impact of these classifications on dogs and their owners.
An “aggressive” dog is one that either:
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1014.01 (2023).)
We’ll talk more below about what “provocation” means in Arizona’s dog-bite laws. The key point to remember here, though, is that people who own (or are responsible for) aggressive dogs have legal obligations that go beyond what’s required of most pet owners. You must take reasonable steps to prevent the dog from escaping the residence or enclosed area where you keep it. And, if you take an aggressive dog off of your property, you must take reasonable precautions to prevent it from attacking people or domestic animals.
Failure to do either of these things is a criminal offense—you could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and penalized with fines or even jail time.
A “vicious” dog is one that has “a propensity to attack, to cause injury to or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings without provocation.” If a dog is found to be vicious the consequences can be severe both for the owner and the animal.
Owners of vicious dogs in Arizona can face fines and prison time if they fail to control the animal. An owner who fails to take reasonable steps to prevent a vicious dog from escaping its enclosure could be found guilty of a misdemeanor. There are even more severe consequences for the owner if a vicious dog bites, attacks, or injures someone while it’s off-leash. In that case, the owner could be found guilty of a felony and face up to two-and-a-half years in prison. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1208 (2023).)
Keep in mind that an owner could face these penalties after a single incident, even if their dog hasn’t previously been declared “vicious” by the authorities. It’s enough that, before the incident, the owner knew (or should have known) that their dog had a propensity to attack, injure, or endanger people.
If the authorities decide that a dog is vicious it can be taken from its owner and might be euthanized. The police or animal control can impound a dog if they think there’s probable cause (in other words, a good reason to believe) that the dog is vicious. But, before an animal can be officially declared vicious and possibly euthanized, owners are entitled to a hearing where they can argue on behalf of their dog. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1029 (2023).)
Arizona, unlike some states, does not classify certain dogs (such as pit bulls) as vicious or dangerous based on their breed. In fact, Arizona law specifically prohibits courts, judges and other officials from taking a dog’s breed into account when determining whether the dog is aggressive or vicious. The state also does not allow a dog’s breed to play a role in determining whether an owner or handler is liable for injuries caused by that dog.
Arizona dog owners can raise two defenses to a dog-bite injury claim.
The first defense is that the injured person was trespassing when the dog attacked them. Arizona's dog-bite statute only applies if the victim was:
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1025 (2023); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1026 (2023).)
It might still be possible for a trespasser to win a dog-bite lawsuit, but it would require seriously bad behavior by the owner (for example, siccing an attack dog on someone who was cutting across the property).
The second defense to a dog-bite lawsuit in Arizona is provocation. As you’ve seen already, many of the rules for dogs in Arizona—including the state’s main dog-bite law—make clear that the dog’s bad behavior must be unprovoked.
Arizona law doesn’t have a specific definition for “provocation,” or a list of actions people should avoid. Instead, the law just says that provocation is anything a reasonable person would expect to provoke a dog. This means that whether a dog’s been provoked has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But it’s safe to assume that Arizona law won’t be sympathetic to a plaintiff who was harassing, chasing, or abusing a dog before they were bitten. (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1027 (2023).)
If you file a dog-bite lawsuit in Arizona your case will follow the same general rules that apply to any personal injury lawsuit in Arizona. If the dog’s owner (or handler) is found liable for your your injuries then they (or their insurance company) would have to pay to cover your damages. You could be compensated for economic damages like medical bills and time missed at work, as well as non-economic damages like any “pain and suffering” caused by the incident.
Of course, not every dog-bite incident will result in significant consequences. If the incident wasn’t traumatic and the injuries were relatively minor, it makes sense to consider whether a lawsuit is worth the time and effort.
Every state has statutes of limitations that impose deadlines for filing a lawsuit. In Arizona there are two statutes of limitations to be aware of for dog-bite cases. You have:
(Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541 (2023); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (2023).)
Courts only extend these deadlines in exceptional circumstances, so if you’ve been injured by a dog you should plan on moving quickly if you might want to pursue a lawsuit.
Whether you’ve been injured by someone else’s dog, or have concerns about a problem involving your pet, you should make sure you understand your legal rights and options. In some situations, it might make sense to handle things yourself. But if the stakes are high—for example, you’ve been seriously injured, or you’re at risk of losing your pet—it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who has experience with dog-bite and animal law cases.
]]>Michigan has different liability rules depending on whether the victim was bitten or suffered a different kind of injury.
Liability for bites. Michigan’s civil code holds owners "strictly liable" when their dogs bite people. Under this strict liability, the owner is automatically legally responsible for bite injuries unless the victim was trespassing or provoked the dog. (See below for more on these potential defenses for an owner).
Michigan’s strict liability rule means an owner can’t escape liability by claiming they didn’t know their dog was dangerous, or by pointing out that they took reasonable precautions to protect people from their pet. (Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351 (2023).)
Liability for injuries other than bites. Michigan’s strict liability rule only applies to bites. But sometimes dogs injure people in other ways—for example, by jumping on someone and knocking them over. In situations like that, there are two ways a victim might be able to recover damages:
Owners who get sued under Michigan’s strict liability dog-bite statute can raise two defenses:
(Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351 (2023).)
Remember that even owners who aren’t strictly liable might still be sued for negligence. In a negligence lawsuit, owners can defend themselves by arguing that the victim was partially or completely responsible for their own injuries. Under Michigan law, a victim’s compensation in a personal injury case is reduced in proportion to their share of responsibility for the incident.
So, if a judge or jury finds that a dog-attack victim was 25% responsible for causing the incident, the amount of damages the owner has to pay is reduced by 25%. Victims who are more than 50% responsible can still receive compensation for things like their medical bills, but not for any noneconomic damages like their pain and suffering. (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959 (2023).)
Laws called “statutes of limitations” impose a deadline on your right to file a civil lawsuit in your state's courts. These deadlines are different depending on what state you’re in and what the case is about.
In Michigan, dog-bite lawsuits are covered by the state’s statute of limitations for personal injury cases. This generally requires victims to file their complaint within three years of being injured. (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2) (2023).)
Except in very rare situations, missing this deadline means that the victim loses their right to sue the dog owner.
In addition to its rules for dog-attack lawsuits, Michigan also has laws addressing when owners can be charged with crimes, when they can be ordered to take steps to protect the public from their dogs, and when their dogs can be euthanized.
An owner can be summoned to court for a hearing if someone files a complaint swearing that the dog engaged in behavior including:
At the hearing, the owner has the opportunity to argue on behalf of their pet. The court will then decide, based on the evidence, what will happen to the dog.
Depending on how serious the dog’s behavior was, and the likelihood that it will kill or injure someone in the future, the court can order that the dog be euthanized. In less serious cases the owner can be ordered to take steps to protect the public from their pet. Those steps can include installing an escape-proof fence to keep the dog confined and to prevent anyone from entering its enclosure.
An owner who disobeys a court order about their dog can be convicted of a misdemeanor, fined, and even jailed for up to three months.
(Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.286 (2023); Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.286a (2023); Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.322 (2023).)
In addition, owners who know their dogs are dangerous risk criminal convictions if their dogs hurt anyone.
A court can find that a dog is dangerous if the evidence at a hearing shows that:
Once a dog has been found dangerous by a court, the owner can be charged with a misdemeanor for a future bite that causes minor injuries to a person.
An owner who knows that their dog is dangerous can face felony charges and very serious criminal penalties—including years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines—if that dog kills or seriously injures someone.
(Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.321 (2023); (Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.323 (2023); People v. Janes, 302 Mich. App. 34 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).)
Whether you’re a dog owner or have been hurt by someone else’s pet, it’s important to understand how Michigan law applies to you. If you have questions about your situation, consider speaking with an attorney with experience handling cases like yours.
]]>Each state has its own rules for dog-bite liability. The three common approaches are:
Louisiana law uses aspects of all three of these approaches to decide dog owners’ liability.
Louisiana has a “limited strict liability” rule for injuries caused by dogs, which means that owners are automatically liable in most instances. But there are two very important exceptions:
(La. Civ. Code Art. 2321 (2023).)
To decide if an injury was preventable, courts have to determine if the animal presented an “unreasonable risk of harm.” To make that determination, courts have to ask the kinds of questions that are usually used to decide if someone was negligent. These include whether:
(Pepper v. Triplet Allstate Ins., 864 So. 2d 181 (La. 2004).)
As the following examples show, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to when a Louisiana owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog—it will depend on how a judge or jury views the facts of the case.
Louisiana courts have found that there was an unreasonable risk of harm, and that the owner was therefore strictly liable, in situations like these.
Failure to take proper precautions to protect people from an aggressive dog. An owner knew their dog was aggressive, and kept it tethered in the backyard to keep it away from passersby. But the tether was long enough, and the backyard fence was low enough, to allow the dog to bite someone walking past the property. The court found the owner strictly liable because he didn’t do enough to protect people from his dog. (Becker v. Keasler, 950 So. 2d 92 (La. Ct. App. 2007.)
Failure to keep children away from a large dog with no history of aggression. The owner of a large Chow Chow dog kept it tethered in a fenced-in yard and posted some warning signs. The owner’s adult daughter invited a family into the yard; one of the young children was bitten when she petted the dog. The court decided that, even though the dog had never been aggressive before, the owner created an unreasonable risk of harm because she didn’t do enough to make sure children didn’t approach her dog. (McBride v. XYZ Insurance, 935 So. 2d 326 (La. Ct. App. 2006).)
An aggressive dog escapes and commits an attack. An animal control officer came to the dog owner’s home to investigate a reported dog bite. The owner walked outside to speak with the officer, closing the front door behind her. The dog escaped the home and mauled the officer. The court found that there was an unreasonable risk of harm because, despite knowing that the dog was aggressive and had escaped the house before, the owner didn’t take the precaution of making sure the front door was securely locked. (Gonzales v. Kissner, 24 So. 3d 214 (La. Ct. App. 2009).)
On the other hand, Louisiana courts have found that there was no unreasonable risk of harm, and therefore decided not to impose strict liability, in cases like the ones below.
An aggressive dog bites a trespasser. The victim was bitten after entering the owner’s yard to retrieve his child’s ball. The dog was territorial, and had previously bitten a trespassing child. The owner had taken precautions that included not inviting people into the yard and double-checking the security of his fence and gate. The court found that the dog didn’t present an unreasonable risk of harm and that the bite victim had put himself in harm’s way. (Pepper v. Triplet, 864 So. 2d 181 (La. 2004).)
A playful dog trips someone working in the owners’ home. A housekeeper was injured when the owners’ puppy got underfoot and caused her to fall. The court reasoned that the housekeeper knew the puppy was playful but didn’t take the precaution of closing the door to keep it away from her. The court also decided that any potential risk posed by a puppy’s playful behavior was outweighed by the benefits the family got from owning the dog. (Williams v. Galofaro, 79 So. 3d 1068 (La. Ct. App. 2011).)
A dog with no history of aggression bites someone who tried to nuzzle it. The owner was working in his front yard when his neighbor walked over to speak with him. The neighbor stopped and pet the dog, and was bitten when he leaned down to nuzzle it. The court sympathized with the neighbor but didn’t find the dog owner liable for the “unfortunate incident.” It noted that the dog had never been aggressive, was securely tethered, and only bit after the neighbor held its head from behind. (Fournet v. Stoufflet, 352 So. 3d 996 (La. Ct. App. 2022).)
Even if a Louisiana court decides that an owner isn’t strictly liable, it can still find that the owner is liable because they were negligent. To show negligence, a plaintiff (the person suing) has to prove that an owner failed in their duty to keep people safe from their dog.
In one case, an owner had her dog on a metal wire leash. When the dog bolted toward a pedestrian, the owner let go of the leash because it was hurting her hand; her dog then bit the pedestrian several times. A jury decided that the owner wasn’t strictly liable but had been negligent. An appeals court agreed that the dog owner was negligent, saying that:
(Kshirsagar v. State Farm Ins. Co., 300 So. 3d 914 (La. Ct. App. 2020).)
Louisiana’s strict liability rule doesn’t apply when a dog has been provoked, but the owner can still sometimes be found negligent for not controlling their pet. For example, in one case, two dog owners were participating in an obedience class when the defendant’s dog bit the plaintiff. The bite happened after the plaintiff failed to follow instructions and let his dog get too close to the defendant’s dog. The court said that strict liability didn’t apply because the plaintiff’s actions had provoked the defendant’s dog. But it also said that the defendant was negligent for not being more careful about keeping his dog under control in a room full of other dogs and owners. (Nelson v. Lakey, 917 So. 2d 678 (La. Ct. App. 2005).)
Unlike some states, Louisiana’s dog-bite law doesn’t use the concept of negligence per se in dog-bite cases. Under negligence per se, defendants who fail to follow public safety laws are automatically negligent if someone is hurt as a result. For example, a court would assume a dog owner was negligent for ignoring a local leash ordinance and thereby allowing their dog to run over and bite someone.
In Louisiana, that sort of rule-breaking doesn’t make an owner negligent per se. But it’s something judges and juries will consider when deciding if an owner was being responsible. (Ducote v. Boleware, 216 So. 3d 934 (La. Ct. App. 2016).)
The best defense for an owner whose dog bit someone is often that the victim was completely or partially responsible for their own injuries.
As covered above, an owner won’t be held strictly liable for a dog attack if they can show that their dog was provoked. Sometimes “provocation” means that the victim was intentionally teasing or hurting the dog, or threatening its owner. But a victim can also provoke a dog by accident. For example, courts in Louisiana have found that these acts either could or did count as provocation:
(Fournet v. Stoufflet, 352 So. 3d 996 (La. Ct. App. 2022), Kshirsagar v. State Farm Ins. Co., 300 So. 3d 914 (La. Ct. App. 2020), Thibodeaux v. Krouse, 991 So. 2d 1126 (La. Ct. App. 2008).)
Importantly, though, determining that the defendant’s dog was provoked often isn’t the end of the story. From there, a judge or jury can decide either that:
Even if a dog owner is found responsible for a victim’s injuries, an important issue is whether the victim was negligent at all.
Louisiana uses a “comparative negligence” system, which means that a defendant only has to pay damages in proportion to their responsibility for a victim’s injuries. For example, in the case where the defendant’s dog bit the plaintiff during an obedience class, the appeals court decided that:
(Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 967 (La. 1985); Nelson v. Lakey, 917 So. 2d 678 (La. Ct. App. 2005).)
If a plaintiff in a dog-bite lawsuit wins, the defendant has to pay damages. Damages can include:
Louisiana doesn’t allow punitive damages in dog-bite cases. (La. Civ. Code Art. 3546 (2023).)
If you’ve been injured by someone’s dog, keep in mind that:
Like all states, Louisiana uses statutes of limitations to create deadlines for filing personal injury lawsuits. Louisiana’s deadline for all personal injury cases, including dog-bite cases, is one year. Except in extraordinary circumstances, a dog-bite victim who misses this one-year deadline will completely lose their right to sue. (La. Civ. Code Art. 3492 (2023).)
Apart from civil lawsuits, Louisiana has laws designed to protect the public from dogs that might pose a threat. Here are some of the key rules:
(La. Rev Stat § 14:102.13 (2023).)
Keep in mind that municipalities in Louisiana can have their own ordinances that impose additional requirements on dogs and their owners. If you have questions about how the law applies to you and your pet, make sure to check the rules for your town, city, or parish.
Louisiana state law defines a “dangerous” dog as one that has, without provocation:
A court that decides that a dog’s behavior fits any of those circumstances can declare that the animal is dangerous and order the owner to take steps to protect the public. These steps include:
Owners who don’t follow these rules can be fined hundreds of dollars. (La. Rev Stat § 14:102.14 (2023).)
In addition, dangerous dogs must be vaccinated and licensed if they aren’t already. And municipalities in Louisiana can charge owners extra fees to cover the cost of the paperwork to license dangerous dogs. (La. Rev Stat § 14:102.17 (2023).)
Finally, if necessary for public safety, a court can order a dangerous dog taken away and bar the owner from owning any dog for up to three years. (La. Rev Stat § 14:102.13 (2023).)
Louisiana state law defines a “vicious” dog as one that:
When a dog is declared vicious it will be taken from its owner and euthanized. The owner can also be barred from dog ownership for three years.
It’s illegal to own a vicious dog—an owner who keeps possession of a dog that’s been declared vicious can be fined up to $500 and jailed for up to six months. (La. Rev Stat § 14:102.15 (2023).)
A dog can’t be declared dangerous or vicious if the owner can show that there was a good reason for its behavior. For example, dogs are generally allowed to:
There are also exceptions for dogs whose owners were using them for hunting, herding, or predator control. (La. Rev Stat § 14:102.13 (2023).)
Some cities and parishes in Louisiana have special rules that apply only to certain dog breeds. This breed-specific legislation usually targets pit bulls and sometimes applies to other breeds as well, including Rottweilers and Dobermans.
Depending on the municipality, certain breeds may be banned completely, or their owners may have to follow special rules designed to protect the public and keep track of the dog.
If you’ve been hurt by someone’s dog, or are facing legal issues with your own pet, it’s important to understand how Louisiana law applies to your circumstances. If you have questions about your situation, it might be helpful to speak with an attorney who’s handled similar cases.
In South Carolina, a dog owner may be held liable for injuries caused by their animal if:
(S.C. Code § 47-3-110 (2023).)
Liability for non-bite injuries. This statute applies both to bites and to other injuries caused by a dog. For instance, suppose that a dog runs out of its owner’s yard and pounces on a pedestrian, knocking them over and injuring them. The injured person may seek compensation from the dog's owner, just like they could if they suffered a bite.
Strict liability for owners. South Carolina law creates "strict liability" for owners whose dogs injure other people. This means that an owner can be held liable even if they were behaving responsibly, and even if they had no reason to think that their dog might attack or bite. Many U.S. states have similar "strict liability" dog-bite rules. Other states rely on:
A person injured by a dog bite in South Carolina has three years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit in the state's civil court system. The law that sets this deadline is known as the statute of limitations, and it applies to all personal injury lawsuits in South Carolina. (S.C. Code § 15-3-530 (2023).)
If the lawsuit is filed after the three-year deadline has passed, the court will almost certainly throw the case out without considering it. So, it's crucial to understand how South Carolina’s statute of limitations applies in your case. If you have questions about this deadline it may be helpful to consult with an attorney.
Faced with a dog-bite lawsuit, an owner in South Carolina might be able to raise some of the defenses available in any personal injury case.
In addition, defendants in dog-bite cases can raise the defenses of provocation and trespassing.
The provocation defense. South Carolina's dog-bite law specifies that, if the injured person provoked the dog, the owner is not liable for any injuries. (S.C. Code § 47-3-110 (2023).) Provocation can take many forms, such as abusing, teasing, or harassing a dog. For instance, suppose a boy puts a stick through the fence between his yard and his neighbor's yard and pokes the neighbor's dog repeatedly, angering the dog so that it jumps the fence and attacks him. The owner may argue that the boy provoked the dog and that therefore the owner is not liable for the boy's injuries.
The trespassing defense. Under South Carolina law, an injured person can only sue a dog’s owner if they were on public property or lawfully on private property when they were attacked. (S.C. Code § 47-3-110 (2023).) That means a dog owner can’t be held strictly liable if their dog attacked someone who was trespassing on their property. Keep in mind that invited guests, as well as workers like mail carriers and meter readers, have a lawful reason for being on an owner’s property and are therefore still covered by South Carolina’s strict liability statute.
In addition to lawsuits, South Carolina owners and their dogs can face other serious consequences in certain situations.
Dogs that harm or threaten members of the public can be classified as dangerous. Once a dog has this designation, its owner must follow rules designed to make sure their pet doesn’t hurt anyone. For example, dangerous dogs must be securely confined when on the owner’s property and can only leave the property if they’re properly restrained. (S.C. Code §§ 47-3-710, 720 and 730 (2023).)
The owner of a dangerous dog can be charged with a misdemeanor if:
If a dangerous dog commits multiple attacks, the owner could face felony charges. A court can also order that a dog be euthanized if it poses a continuing threat to the public. (S.C. Code §§ 47-3-750 and 760 (2023).)
Whether you’re a dog owner or someone who’s been injured by someone else’s pet, it’s important to understand how South Carolina law applies to your situation. It might be helpful to speak with an attorney with the right experience to advise you on your case.
]]>Dog ownership comes with great joy and great responsibility. Dog owners are responsible for taking care of their pets and they are legally responsible for preventing their pets from injuring other people or causing property damage. And yet about 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year according to the Insurance Information Institute.
Whether you own a dog, or have been hurt by someone else’s pet, it’s important to understand how Missouri law applies to your situation.
Missouri dog owners are automatically responsible for bite injuries and property damage caused by their pets. Unlike some states, Missouri doesn't use the "one-bite" rule, which requires a bite victim to show that the owner knew (or should have known) that their dog was dangerous. It's also not necessary to prove that the incident was caused by the owner’s carelessness.
Instead, Missouri dog-bite victims can receive compensation for their losses by showing they were:
In addition to paying damages to the victim, Missouri dog owners can also be fined up to $1,000.
(Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 (2023).)
Missouri’s strict liability statute only applies to dog bites and property damage. But Missouri’s common law gives victims who’ve suffered non-bite injuries two options for recovering damages from the dog’s owner.
In order to win a negligence lawsuit, the injured person typically has to show that:
An owner’s duty includes being prepared for typical canine habits, like running around when off-leash and showing excitement by jumping on people. When deciding if an owner was negligent a court will also consider what the owner knew about their dog’s specific habits.
For example, an owner could be negligent if they let their dog off-leash at the park, and it runs past someone at high speed and trips them. In that situation, the owner is more likely to be found negligent if they knew their dog had a habit of running at top speed when off-leash.
(Savory v. Hensick, 143 S.W.3d 712, 717–18 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).)
Usually a victim has to prove that an owner’s behavior was irresponsible, and the owner can argue that they behaved reasonably under the circumstances. Take the scenario above where a dog tripped someone by running past them at high speed. If the owner can show that their dog had always been very calm and slow-moving, they could argue that it wasn’t negligent to allow the dog off its leash at the park.
But Missouri uses a rule called negligence per se that, in certain situations, automatically deems an owner’s behavior negligent. Negligence per se applies when:
For example, many municipalities have ordinances requiring owners to keep their dogs on leashes in public places. If a dog is able to injure someone because its owner ignored a leash law, then the owner is negligent per se. In other words, the owner’s decision to ignore the leash law is, by itself, enough to prove that they behaved irresponsibly.
(Jensen v. Feely, 691 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).)
As we discussed above, Missouri doesn't use the so-called "one-bite" rule for bite injuries. But it does use the same idea when deciding if an owner is responsible for non-bite injuries. If an owner is aware that their dog has a particularly dangerous tendency, then they can be held strictly liable for non-bite injuries caused by that behavior.
Missouri courts have stressed that, for strict liability to apply, the dog’s behavior has to be “abnormally” dangerous. The dog has to display behavior that:
Courts assume that things like running around or jumping on people are typical behaviors for dogs. Abnormally dangerous behavior is much more serious, like a tendency to attack people without being provoked.
But keep in mind that a dog’s behavior can be abnormally dangerous without being malicious. For example, a large dog that knocks someone over and scratches them might be trying to hurt that person, or just trying to play. The legal question is whether the owner knows their dog’s habits put people at risk, not why the dog behaves the way it does.
(Frazier v. Stone, 515 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Mo. App. 1974); Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Simmons, 103 S.W.3d 211, 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).)
Even in Missouri and other states with strict liability dog-bite laws, owners aren’t liable for every single dog bite. Dog owners can raise defenses that may reduce or eliminate their liability, including arguing that the victim was trespassing or provoked the dog.
Missouri, like many states, does not offer the same legal protections to trespassers as it does to other people who are injured by dogs.
First, the state’s strict liability rule does not apply in cases where the victim was on the owner’s property unlawfully.
Second, property owners don’t have the same legal obligations to trespassers as they do to people who have a right to be on their property (like invited guests and mail carriers). The law generally assumes that someone who trespasses does so at their own risk, and is responsible for their own injuries if they get hurt.
Property owners should keep in mind that this rule isn’t absolute. Children, for example, aren’t treated the same way as other trespassers, because the law assumes they aren’t as capable of recognizing danger or understanding that they should stay off of private property. An owner could be found negligent if their carelessness allows a child to wander onto the property and get attacked by the owner’s dog.
(Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Simmons, 103 S.W.3d 211, 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003); Fields v. Henrich, 208 S.W.3d 353, 361 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).)
Missouri owners can also avoid liability by showing that their dog was provoked. “Provocation” includes when a victim is teasing a dog or deliberately trying to hurt it. But it’s possible for a victim to provoke a bite by accident. For example, if a child runs over a dog while playing, and the dog responds by biting, the owner could argue that the bite was provoked.
(Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 (2023); Bush v. Anderson, 360 S.W.2d 251 (Mo. App. 1962).)
In some cases, a dog owner and dog-bite victim may share blame for the incident.
Under Missouri’s comparative negligence rule, victims in negligence cases will have their compensation reduced in proportion to their own responsibility for the accident. (Beal v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 527 S.W.3d 883 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).)
The state’s strict liability dog-bite law uses the same approach, allowing owners to argue that a victim bears some responsibility for their own injuries. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 (2023).)
So, let’s say an owner lets their dog run around off-leash at the park. The dog knocks over a bicyclist who was trying to ride and send a text message at the same time. A court could find the owner partially responsible for the accident (especially if the owner was violating a leash ordinance).
But the court could also find that the victim’s distracted riding makes them 50% responsible for their own injuries. The victim’s compensation would then be reduced accordingly.
Each state has its own deadlines—called “statutes of limitations”—for filing civil lawsuits.
Like many states, Missouri uses the same statute of limitations for dog-bite cases as it does for other personal injury cases. A victim has five years from the date of their injury to file their lawsuit.
(Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120 (2023).)
Victims who miss this deadline will almost certainly have their case dismissed by a Missouri court. If you have questions about the timing of your lawsuit, or how the statute of limitations applies to your situation, a local attorney may be able to help.
Learn more about the statutes of limitations in your state.
Missouri makes it a crime to keep a dangerous dog. State law defines a dog as “dangerous” if it:
Criminal penalties for owners of dangerous dogs. The owner of dangerous dog could be found guilty of crimes ranging from a class B misdemeanor to a class D felony. Criminal consequences are most severe in cases where:
Impounding and euthanizing dangerous dogs. In addition to these criminal consequences, owners of dangerous dogs risk losing their pets. The police or animal control will seize and impound any dog that:
An impounded dog will be euthanized unless the owner files an appeal and convinces a court that the dog should be released.
Defenses for owners and their dogs. Missouri law recognizes that there are times when a dog might be justified in biting someone. If a dog bites because it’s been provoked, it can’t be euthanized and its owner can’t be charged with a crime.
Dogs and owners are also usually protected from legal consequences if the bite victim was committing a crime. Keep in mind, though, that a dog doesn’t get a free pass to bite anyone who has technically broken the law. Owners can still face criminal charges, and dogs can be impounded and euthanized, in cases where the bite victim was:
(Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.024 (2023).)
If you’ve been hurt by a dog, or someone has accused your dog of causing harm, you should consider consulting with an attorney. The financial stakes in a dog-bite case can be high—the Insurance Information Institute estimates that there were around 18,000 dog-related injury claims in 2021, with a total value of $881.9 million. Just as importantly, these cases can be emotionally draining for everyone involved.
A lawyer can help by walking you through your legal options, negotiating on your behalf, and representing your interests in court. You can learn more about how to find the right lawyer for your situation, and about when dog owners might be liable for bites and other injuries.
]]>New Jersey, like most states in the U.S., has a “strict liability” law that makes a dog’s owner liable in a civil lawsuit when the animal bites someone, as long as the victim was on public property or was legally on private property when the incident happened. It doesn’t matter whether the owner knew the dog had ever been vicious before. (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-16.)
As long as the victim was bitten, the owner may have to pay damages for all of the injuries, even if some of them resulted when the dog jumped on the victim or attacked in other ways. (Gross v. Dunham, 221 A.2d 555 (N.J. App. 1966).
Under New Jersey's statute of limitations, bite victims must file a lawsuit within two years of the incident. (N.J. Stat. Ann § 2A:14-2.)
Dogs can injure people without actually biting them, for example by knocking someone over or chasing a motorcycle and causing an accident. In situations like that, the strict liability statute won't apply.
But someone who was hurt by a dog without being bitten might still be able to receive compensation for their injuries. They must be able to prove either that:
Owner negligence. An owner can be held liable for non-bite injuries if the victim can show that:
For example, an owner could be found negligent if they let their dog roam around off-leash and the dog runs up to someone and knocks them over.
Dangerous habits. An owner can also be held responsible for non-bite injuries if:
Like the law for dog bites we discussed above, this is a strict liability rule. When it applies, a victim can recover damages without having to prove that their injuries were the direct result of the owner's carelessness.
Dangerous habits include violent or aggressive behavior, like a tendency to try to attack strangers. But New Jersey law also makes owners strictly liable for tendencies that could seem playful or friendly, like a dog’s habit of jumping on people because it’s excited to see them. (DeRobertis v. Randazzo, 94 N.J. 144 (1983); Jannuzzelli v. Wilkins, 385 A.2d 322 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978).
People who've suffered non-bite injuries are subject to the same statute of limitations as bite victims, and must file any lawsuit within two years of the incident. (N.J. Stat. Ann § 2A:14-2.)
New Jersey has a civil procedure for controlling dangerous dogs (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 4:19-22—4:19-32). The process generally starts when an animal control officer believes that a dog is a serious threat after an unprovoked attack on a person or another animal. After impounding the dog, the officer will notify the owner and the court. After a hearing, if the court decides that the animal is potentially dangerous (for reasons spelled out in the law), it will order the owner to meet certain conditions, including:
An owner who doesn’t obey the order will be fined up to $1,000 for each day of the violation.
If the court finds that the dog is vicious because it seriously injured someone (without being provoked) or was involved in organized dog fighting, the animal will be destroyed.
A dog owner facing a civil lawsuit for dog bite or other dog-related injuries may have one or more legal defenses, including:
If someone is suing you over a dog bite or other injury that your dog supposedly caused, you should consider speaking with a personal injury lawyer. An attorney experienced in this area can explain how New Jersey law applies to your situation, what defenses you might have, and how to protect your rights. If you’re dealing with dangerous-dog proceeding or a court order to destroy your pet, it might be helpful to consult with an animal law attorney.
]]>Someone who’s been injured by a dog might be entitled to recover compensation for their damages from the animal’s owner. The rules for when owners are liable vary from state to state.
California is one of the states with "strict liability" dog-bite laws that make pet owners responsible for most dog-bite injuries. When a victim sues under the state’s strict liability rule, it doesn’t matter:
(Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 (2023).)
California’s strict liability law has some limits, however.
Lawfully present. A dog owner is strictly liable only if the injured person:
For the purpose of the statute, anyone who's carrying out a legal duty (like delivering mail) is lawfully on private property.
Police and military dogs. Injured people can't sue under this statute if they were bitten by police or military dogs that were either doing law enforcement work or defending someone. But this doesn't apply when the bite victim wasn’t suspected of participating in a crime. So, for example, an innocent bystander at the scene of a robbery might be able to sue if they’re bitten by a police dog, but a robbery suspect can’t. (City of Huntington Beach v. City of Westminster, 57 Cal.App.4th 220 (1997).)
Veterinarians. California courts have held that owners are generally not liable if their dogs bite veterinarians or vet assistants during treatment. (Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2006).)
If a dog grabs someone with its teeth but doesn't break the skin, that could still count as a bite. In a case where a worker fell from his ladder after a dog closed its jaws on his pants, the court held that the animal's owner was liable for the injuries. (Johnson v. McMahan, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 173 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1998).)
California’s dog-bite laws generally don’t protect trespassers. California’s strict liability statute applies only when a dog bites someone who was in a public place or “lawfully” on the private property where the bite occurs.
The law says that a person is lawfully on a dog owner’s property when:
So, an owner will generally not be liable if their dog bites and injures a trespasser. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 (2023).)
That said, a trespasser who can offer proof that the dog owner was in some way negligent might be able to hold the owner liable. That could be very difficult to prove, though.
In addition, the state’s dangerous-dog laws specifically say that a dog cannot be declared potentially dangerous or vicious based on the dog’s history of biting a trespasser. (Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31626 (2023).)
California's strict liability statute won't help victims who were injured by dogs that didn't bite them. For instance, if a dog causes an accident by attacking someone’s bicycle wheel, or by chasing a motorcyclist, strict liability doesn’t apply.
But that doesn't necessarily mean a victim has no other options. Injured people might be able to receive compensation if they can prove that their injuries resulted from the dog owners' negligence.
For example, suppose a dog jumps on a child who's playing on the sidewalk and scratches the child's eye. If the victim's parents sue, they must prove that the owner didn't use reasonable care to control the dog, such as by keeping it on a leash or in a fenced-in yard.
All states have laws called “statutes of limitations” that set out specific time limits for getting a lawsuit started in court. The deadline differs depending on the type of case you want to file, but the consequences of missing the deadline are always serious. If you file the claim too late, the court will almost certainly dismiss your case (unless some rare exception applies).
California doesn’t have a specific statute of limitations that applies to dog-bite lawsuits. Instead, these cases fall under the state’s statute of limitations for assault, battery, or personal injury. This law says that a plaintiff in a dog-bite civil suit must file the case within two years of the date of the injury. The time period might be extended in some circumstances. (For more, see our article on when to sue for a dog bite.)
Note that different deadlines will apply if the person who owns or controls the dog is facing criminal charges.
(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (2023).)
Dog owners could have one or more legal defenses in civil lawsuits over injuries caused by their animals. For instance, they might argue that a victim:
Sometimes a successful defense means that an owner isn't liable and doesn't owe the plaintiff any damages. Under California's "pure" comparative negligence rule, a defendant can also reduce their liability (and the money they owe a plaintiff) in proportion to the defendant's own responsibility for an accident. (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (Cal. 1975).)
A different set of defenses might apply if criminal charges result from a dog bite.
Anyone who owns a dog may also face criminal charges when the animal injures someone while roaming at large, but only if the owner:
The crime is a felony if the attack victim dies and a "wobbler" (either a misdemeanor or felony) if the victim was only injured.
Even if criminal charges are filed in connection with a dog bite, the injured person may still sue the owner for damages.
These criminal penalties can also apply to someone other than the owner (like a pet sitter or a dog walker) who has “custody or control” of the animal when it injures someone.
(Cal. Penal Code § 399 (2023).)
California's strict liability dog-bite statute applies regardless of the animal's history. But the state has other laws that make owners responsible for protecting the public from a pet that has previously bitten someone or engaged in other dangerous behavior.
These laws also allow the state to impose serious consequences on the dog—including euthanasia in the most serious cases.
Both private citizens and local government attorneys can start legal proceedings against the owner of a dog that:
These hearings are different from a lawsuit. In a lawsuit a plaintiff is asking for money to compensate them for injuries they say they’ve suffered. The purpose of these hearings, though, is to allow a court to:
The court’s orders can include things like removing the dog from the area or having it “destroyed” (that is, euthanized). But these civil proceedings can't be based on a dog's history of biting trespassers, or on bites by working police or military dogs.
(Cal. Civil Code § 3342.5 (2023).)
California also has a separate legal procedure for controlling potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. This process is similar to the one for dogs that have bitten someone, but there are a couple of important differences:
(Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31621 (2023).)
California law defines when a dog is “potentially dangerous” or “vicious.” These definitions are used:
A dog is “potentially dangerous” if it has:
If the court decides that the animal is potentially dangerous, then it must be kept indoors, in a fenced yard that will keep the animal in and children out, or on a secure leash controlled by a responsible adult.
(Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31602 (2023); Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31642 (2023).)
A dog is “vicious” in two situations:
Animal control may destroy (euthanize, in other words) a vicious dog if the court finds that the animal poses a significant threat to the public. The court may also prohibit the owner from having any dog for up to three years.
If a vicious dog is not destroyed, the court must impose conditions on controlling the animal to protect the public. Owners or keepers of dangerous or vicious dogs will be fined for any violations of these restrictions.
(Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31603 (2023); Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31645 (2023); Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 31646 (2023).)
Both owners and victims should know the basics of how dog-bite liability works and what to do after an incident. It’s also important to understand how California law applies to you. Especially in serious cases, you might want to find a local attorney with the right experience to assist with your case.
Owners should also keep in mind that a criminal defense lawyer can help protect their rights if they’re facing criminal charges over a dog bite or other injury.
]]>Unlike most states, Texas has no civil statute that spells out a dog owner's civil liability for damages when their animal bites or otherwise injures someone. But Texas’s state courts have ruled that there are two situations in which owners can be found liable for injuries caused by their dogs.
Liability under the “one-bite” rule. Like many states, Texas follows a version of the so-called “one-bite” rule. This means that owners who know (or should know) that their pets might be dangerous are strictly liable if their dog attacks someone. Once an owner is on notice that their dog has dangerous or aggressive tendencies, they’re responsible for any bites or other injuries it inflicts. The owner is liable even if they acted responsibly and took precautions to protect people from their pet. (Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974).)
Liability based on negligence. Owners who have no reason to think their dogs might be dangerous can still be sued for negligence. To prove liability in a negligence case, a victim has to show that:
For example, an owner could be found negligent if they let their dog roam off-leash, and the dog runs into and knocks over a pedestrian.
In each state, laws called "statutes of limitations" set deadlines for filing lawsuits in civil court. Different deadlines apply to different kinds of cases. Most states don't have a specific statute of limitations for dog-bite lawsuits. Instead, these kinds of claims almost always fall under the umbrella of "personal injury" or "tort" cases.
The Texas personal injury statute of limitations states that personal injury lawsuits (which includes dog-bite lawsuits) must be filed in court "not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues." In other words, a victim has two years from the day that they’re injured to sue the dog’s owner. (Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Code § 16.003 (2023).)
If you don't get your Texas dog-bite lawsuit filed before the two-year deadline passes, you'll almost certainly lose your right to hold the dog owner liable for your injuries.
In certain very serious dog-attack cases, the animal's owner could face criminal charges as well as civil liability.
A Texas dog owner can only be charged with a felony if their pet has attacked without being provoked and either killed or seriously injured the victim. But even that isn’t enough to bring criminal charges. The owner has to be responsible for the attack for one of two reasons:
(Tex. Health and Safety Code § 822.005 (2023).)
According to Texas law, a “dangerous dog” is a canine with a history of violent or threatening behavior. Specifically, a dog might be designated as dangerous if it either:
Even if a dog does one of these things, though, it won’t be designated as dangerous if:
(Tex. Health and Safety Code § 822.041 (2023).)
Texas dog owners have several potential defenses to a dog-bite lawsuit.
Owners can argue that the one-bite rule doesn’t apply. An owner sued under Texas’ one-bite rule can defend themselves by:
If a victim can’t prove the owner knew their dog might be dangerous, then the owner can’t be held strictly liable. Instead, the victim would have to prove that the owner was negligent, which requires additional evidence of irresponsible conduct by the owner.
Owners can argue that the victim was negligent. Under Texas’ comparative negligence system, the amount of damages a plaintiff can receive is reduced in proportion to their responsibility for the incident. Plaintiffs recover nothing if they are more than 50% responsible for their own injuries. Victims can share responsibility in a dog-bite case if, for example, they carelessly startled or provoked the animal. (Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Code §§ 33.01-03 (2023).)
Owners can argue the victim was trespassing. A trespasser is anyone who doesn’t have either permission or a legal reason (for example, delivering the mail) to be on someone else’s property. Texas property owners aren’t strictly liable for injuries their dogs inflict on trespassers. A trespasser can recover damages only if they can show that the owner’s actions were particularly bad—for example, letting their dog hurt someone intentionally or through gross negligence. (Marshall v. Ranne (511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974); Mayer v. Willowbrook, 278 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App. 2009).)
Other defenses can also apply depending on the facts of the case.
Whether you’ve been hurt by someone’s dog or someone is accusing your pet of an attack, it’s important to know the basics of how the law deals with dog bites and other injuries caused by pets. You can read more about how comparative negligence works in dog-bite cases, and about the factors that go into deciding when owners are responsible for the actions of their pets.
If you have questions about how Texas’s dog-bite laws apply to your situation or are simply interested in getting help from a professional, consider reaching out to an attorney with experience handling animal cases.
]]>Virginia’s common law uses two rules for deciding when owners are responsible for injuries inflicted by their dogs:
This approach holds owners of dangerous dogs to a higher standard but makes all owners legally responsible if their carelessness leads to a bite or other injury.
Virginia uses a version of the so-called "one-bite" rule, under which an owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog if they knew the dog might be dangerous. Strict liability means that an owner is legally responsible even if they took all of the precautions a careful owner should.
Virginia doesn’t have a statute explaining exactly what canine behavior puts an owner on notice, and judges have answered that question differently over the years.
Some courts have ruled that a dog has to injure, bite or attack someone before the owner becomes strictly liable for subsequent incidents. (Crocker-Sanford v. Landrum, 40 Va. Cir. 282 (1996); Smith v. Simmons, 89 Va. Cir. 213 (2014).)
But at least one Virginia court has said that an owner can be on notice even if their dog had never hurt or attacked anyone before. In that case, the judge suggested that strict liability could apply if a dog had done things—like snarling and baring its teeth at visitors—that would make a careful owner concerned that it might attack someone. (Burton v. Walmsley, 9 Va. Cir. 309 (1967).)
Owners who weren’t on notice of their dog’s dangerous tendencies can still be sued for negligence.
To win a negligence lawsuit, the victim of an attack has to show that the dog owner was careless, and that this carelessness led to their injuries. (Butler v. Frieden, 208 Va. 352 (1967).). For example, if you’re bitten by a dog that was roaming around off-leash, you could argue that the owner was negligent for failing to keep their pet under control.
It can be challenging for a victim to prove that an owner was negligent. For example, the owner of a dog that bites someone while off-leash could present evidence that their dog was well-trained, calm, and friendly towards strangers. That would help them argue that they weren’t being careless just because they didn’t keep their pet on a leash at all times.
Virginia uses a rule called negligence per se that can make owners automatically responsible for injuries caused by their dogs. Negligence per se applies when an owner violates a law designed to protect the public, and someone is harmed as a result. (Butler v. Frieden, 208 Va. 352 (1967).)
For example, if an owner was violating a local leash ordinance by allowing their dog to roam freely, that behavior is negligent per se in Virginia. The owner won’t be able to argue that, all things considered, they were being as careful as they needed to be. A court will assume that any injuries caused by that dog are the result of the owner’s carelessness.
A dog attack victim can sometimes seek compensation from the dog owner’s landlord or from the condominium association where the owner lives. But the potential liability of landlords and condo associations is much more limited than the liability of dog owners. Keep in mind that:
A dog owner’s best defense will often be that the plaintiff was at least partly to blame for their own injuries. This is a powerful argument in Virginia because the state uses contributory negligence in personal injury cases.
Contributory negligence means that, if the injured person is found to be even one percent at fault for their own injuries, they are barred from recovering any damages at all. (Ponirakis v. Choi, 262 Va. 119 (2001).)
Provoking the dog. The victim of a dog attack could be held responsible for their own injuries if they provoked the dog by, for example, teasing or hurting it. A bite victim might also be barred from recovering damages if the dog was acting to defend its owner from a crime or other threat.
Trespassers. Also, property owners face less legal risk if their dog bites a trespasser. Virginia law generally assumes that people can’t sue for injuries—including dog bites—that they suffer while trespassing. But you should know that a young child or someone else who just wandered onto private property accidentally might have a case if they’re bitten.
Importantly, these defenses apply in negligence cases and in strict liability cases. Even owners who know their dogs are dangerous can argue that the victim’s behavior, not their dog’s dangerous tendencies, was the real cause of an attack. And, in strict liability cases, it’s common for owners to argue that they had no reason to know their dog might be dangerous.
When the plaintiff wins a dog-bite case, the court can require the defendant to pay damages. That means the dog owner (or their insurance company) must compensate the dog-bite victim for the harm they’ve suffered.
Plaintiffs seeking less than $5,000 in damages can bring a case in Virginia small claims court.
But keep in mind that there may be other options besides a lawsuit for seeking compensation. Depending on the situation, a victim could receive an insurance settlement or get money from the dog owner without having to sue.
If you’ve been hurt by someone’s pet and aren’t sure what to do, it might be helpful to consult with an attorney.
Virginia, like every state, has rules that require victims to file civil lawsuits before too much time has passed. Virginia's statute of limitations for most personal injury cases, including dog-bite cases, is two years.
It’s always a good idea to bring a personal injury case as soon as you reasonably can. If you have concerns about the timing of your lawsuit, make sure to learn the details of Virginia’s rules and consider speaking to an attorney.
If a dog commits a serious attack on a person or pet, a court can classify it as either dangerous or vicious. Either classification imposes significant consequences on both the dog and its owner.
A dog can be classified as dangerous if a court determines that it:
A dog can only be declared dangerous after a court proceeding. A police officer or animal control officer can start court proceedings (and sometimes impound the dog to protect the public) if there’s been an incident that makes them think a dog might be dangerous. The incident has to be pretty serious—for example, it can’t be a nip that only caused a minor injury. (Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6540(C) and (F).)
Dogs don’t have constitutional rights, but in Virginia a dog can’t be declared dangerous unless it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Owners must be notified about the hearing in writing, have the right to ask for a jury trial, and get 30 days to appeal if they disagree with the outcome. (Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6540.)
Dangerous dogs and their owners face strict requirements. Owners can be ordered to pay back the government for any money spent caring for a dangerous dog before the hearing. They can also be ordered to pay restitution to the victim of an attack. (This restitution doesn’t mean a victim can’t also sue the owner for damages). (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540(I).)
Also, the owner of a dangerous dog must make sure that the dog is:
The owner must also buy liability insurance that can compensate victims if the dog attacks again. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.01(B).)
Dangerous dogs are also subject to rules about how and where they’re kept, including that:
(Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.01.)
Virginia also requires owners of dangerous dogs to inform the authorities if there are any serious new incidents involving the dog, including escapes, attacks, and lawsuits over the dog’s behavior. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.01(E).)
Owners must register their dangerous dogs. Virginia’s Dangerous Dog Registry allows anyone to see a list of all the dangerous dogs in a municipality or zip code, or to search for a specific dog by its name, tag number, or owner’s address. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6542.)
Owners must submit a photograph and information about their dog to animal control so it can be included in the registry. A dangerous dog’s registration has to be renewed every year, which requires the dog and the location where it’s kept to pass an inspection by animal control. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6542.1.)
Owners of dangerous dogs risk serious consequences if they don’t follow the rules. Animal control can impound a dangerous dog and ask for another court hearing if the owner fails to do everything they’re required to do (even if they’re trying their best). An owner who can’t or won’t follow the court’s orders risks having their dog permanently taken away, and even euthanized.
There are even more severe penalties for a dangerous dog owner who deliberately ignores the rules. In that case, the owner might:
(Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.03.)
Classifying a dog as vicious is much more serious than classifying it as dangerous—Virginia law requires vicious dogs to be euthanized. Moreover, the owner of a vicious dog can be ordered to pay restitution to compensate victims for an attack. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.1(B).)
A dog can be classified as vicious only if a court determines that it has:
While the classification is more serious, the rules for finding a dog vicious are very similar to the rules for finding it dangerous. For example, the authorities must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an owner is entitled to a jury trial and an appeal. One important difference is that a potentially vicious dog will always be confined and kept away from the public until a final decision is reached. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.1.)
Not every attack can be used as evidence that a dog is dangerous or vicious. For example, if a dog was defending itself, a person, or its owner’s property then that can’t be used as evidence of dangerousness or viciousness. In addition, a dog generally won’t be declared dangerous or vicious for attacking a victim who:
(Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6540(K) and 3.2-6540.1(C).)
Virginia, unlike some states, doesn’t allow municipalities to target specific dog breeds (like pit bulls or Rottweilers) with bans or special regulations. State law also won’t let a court classify a dog as vicious or dangerous just because of its breed. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540(K)(1) and § 3.2-6540.1(C).)
As we discussed in the previous section, owners can face misdemeanor charges if they fail to comply with court orders about their dangerous dogs. In addition, there are two situations in which an owner could be charged with a crime for an attack committed by their pet.
First, if a dog is already on Virginia’s Dangerous Dog Registry, a new attack on an animal or person can result in misdemeanor charges against the owner. Depending on the attack’s seriousness, the penalties could include up to one year in jail and thousands of dollars in fines. (Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.04.)
Second, the owner of any dog (even one that’s never attacked before) could face felony charges if:
(Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540.1(D).) In the rare cases where owners are guilty of this kind of behavior they can be sentenced to 1-5 years in prison.
An owner can only be convicted of a crime if the government proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Dog owners should know how state and local laws in Virginia apply to them and their pets, especially if they’re facing a lawsuit or a dangerous/vicious dog hearing. In turn, people who have been bitten or otherwise hurt by a pet should know their options.
If you have questions about your situation—whether you’re the owner or victim in a dog-bite situation—consider working with a local attorney who has experience handling similar cases.
New York owners—and anyone who’s been harmed by someone else’s pet—should understand both these rules and the state’s approach to identifying and dealing with dangerous dogs.
New York defines a dangerous dog as a canine that:
(NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 108(24).) A dog can be found “dangerous” either through a special hearing process or in a civil lawsuit brought by the victim of an attack.
New York’s Consolidated Laws (the state’s name for its civil code) include a section titled “Dangerous Dogs” that lays out the rules for identifying and controlling dogs that pose a threat to people and other animals. (NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123.) In this context, a “dangerous dog” is one that a judge has found to be dangerous after evaluating evidence presented at a hearing.
Anyone who sees a dog attack a person, pet, or farm animal can report the incident to their local animal control officer or to the police. If a child witnesses the attack, an adult can make the report on the child’s behalf.
The officer who receives the report is required to either:
An officer who agrees that a dog is probably dangerous must file the complaint. Whether it’s filed by the officer or by a private citizen, the complaint asks a judge to hold a hearing to decide if the dog is dangerous, and to issue any orders necessary to protect the public. (NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123.)
At the hearing, the burden is on the person bringing the complaint to prove with “clear and convincing evidence” that the dog is dangerous.
A judge who thinks there’s a good chance the dog might be dangerous can have the animal impounded temporarily until final decisions after the hearing.
Keep in mind that there are times when a judge won’t deem a dog dangerous even if it has seriously injured or killed a person or animal. New York law provides a full list of situations that excuse a dog’s behavior. Generally speaking, though, a dog won’t be deemed dangerous if it was:
(NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123.) One of the purposes of a hearing is to decide if a dog’s behavior was unacceptably dangerous, or a justifiable response to the situation it was in.
If a judge decides after a hearing that a dog is dangerous, the government can impose rules designed to protect the public.
A dangerous dog must be neutered or spayed and microchipped.
The judge can also order the dog to be:
In the worst cases—where a dog has killed or badly injured a person, or has a history of serious attacks on people or animals—the judge can order that a dog be euthanized. (NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123(3).)
A judge who decides that a dog is dangerous can impose requirements and penalties on the owner.
The owner must pay the medical expenses of people and animals injured by their dangerous dog. (We’ll talk below about a victim’s other option for recovering their medical expenses.) A judge can also order an owner to carry up to $100,000 in liability insurance to cover any future harm caused by the dangerous dog. (NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123(2)(e).)
In addition, once a dog has been deemed “dangerous,” its owner could face criminal charges for future incidents:
(NY Agric. & Mkts. Law §§ 123(8)-(9).) These criminal penalties for a second attack don’t apply in all circumstances. Even a dangerous dog is sometimes allowed to bite or kill an attacker to stop a serious crime like murder or kidnapping.
As we’ll discuss below, New York doesn’t permit victims to file negligence lawsuits against dog owners. But owners can still be fined by the government if their negligence leads to an attack.
An owner can be fined $400 for negligently allowing their dog to bite and injure a person, a pet, a service animal, or a farm animal.
The fine goes up to $1,500 if the owner’s negligence results in their dog biting and seriously injuring someone. Fines can be reduced by any amount the owner pays directly to the victim to cover medical expenses, lost earnings, and other damages. So, for example, if an owner is fined $1,000, and the victim has $600 in damages, the owner could choose to cover those damages and pay the remaining $400 to the government. (NY Agric. & Mkts. Law §§ 123(6)-(7).)
An owner who disagrees with a court’s decision that a dog is dangerous has 30 days to file an appeal asking a higher court to overturn or modify the original ruling. If the owner appeals a euthanasia order, the order is put on hold until a final decision is reached. (NY Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123(5)(a).)
The hearing process for potentially dangerous dogs is focused on public safety. That’s why it’s sometimes a local government, and not someone who was injured by the dog, arguing that the dog should be deemed “dangerous.”
But someone who’s been harmed by a dog has the option of filing a personal injury lawsuit against the dog’s owner, or anyone else who was legally responsible for the dog’s behavior. In a civil suit, the plaintiff is asking for money to compensate for their damages.
As we’ve discussed, “strict liability” means that an owner is responsible for damage done by their dog even if the damage wasn’t caused by the owner’s carelessness. For example, under strict liability, an owner would be responsible for a bite even if they did everything a good owner would do to protect people from their dog.
New York’s rules for dog-attack lawsuits use strict liability in two situations.
Like many states, New York uses a version of the so-called “one-bite rule,” under which an owner can only be liable if they knew that their dog might be dangerous. In New York, an owner is strictly liable for all damage caused by their dog’s “vicious propensity,” but only if they were aware of that propensity.
New York’s rule comes from a case called Bard v. Jahnke. In Bard New York’s highest court severely restricted the situations in which a victim can recover all of their damages after they’re hurt (or have their property damaged) by a dog or other domestic animal. Under Bard, an owner isn’t liable at all unless:
This rule imposes strict liability on, for example, an owner whose dog bites and injures someone after several previous near-misses where it snapped at people without being provoked.
But it doesn’t impose any liability at all in some situations where it might seem reasonable to hold the owner responsible. For example, New York rejected liability for an owner who tied his dog’s leash to an unsecured bicycle rack, which then tripped and injured a pedestrian when the dog ran away with the bike rack trailing behind. In many jurisdictions, that kind of carelessness would allow the victim to file a successful negligence lawsuit, but New York’s rule works differently.
New York courts also rejected any liability for an owner who disobeyed a local leash law, which allowed his dog to chase a mail carrier who was then injured trying to run away. Many states would have found the owner negligent automatically in a situation like this one. But New York’s highest court ruled in the owner’s favor, finding that the owner couldn’t be held liable because he didn’t have any reason to know his dog might be vicious or dangerous.
Even the victim of a serious dog bite in New York wouldn’t be able to recover all of their damages unless they could show that the owner knew their dog could be vicious.
The second way that strict liability applies to dog-caused injuries has to do with medical costs. Specifically, New York’s civil code makes owners strictly liable for medical costs if their dog injures a person, a pet, or a farm animal. (See the sidebar for some details on how this law works.)
This rule addresses some of the potential unfairness of the common law approach, because it means an owner can sometimes be required to pay a victim’s medical bills even if they didn’t know their dog might be vicious.
Bear in mind, though, that this strict liability rule only compensates a victim for their medical costs. Compensation for other damages—including things like lost wages and compensation for pain and suffering—are still only available if the dog owner knew about the vicious propensity that led to the victim’s injury.
It’s also important to remember that, even under strict liability, an owner is only liable for unjustified attacks. As we discussed earlier, the law can excuse a dog’s behavior if it’s been provoked or is acting to defend itself, its owner, or others.
Sometimes someone other than the owner can be held legally responsible if their in-the-moment carelessness allows a dog to injure someone. While lawsuits against owners
For example, in a 2020 case New York’s highest court decided that a veterinary clinic could be held liable for failing to protect a customer in its waiting room from a dog being treated at the facility. The court didn’t require the plaintiff to prove that the clinic’s staff knew the dog might be vicious. The court reasoned that the clinic owed a duty of care to its customers, and that its employees should have understood that any dog at the vet might be under stress and at greater risk of acting out.
On the other hand, in some cases a victim can only win a negligence suit if the defendant knew—or should have known—that the dog had a vicious propensity. This rule has been applied to landlords, who can be sued for negligence if, for example, they know a tenant has a dangerous dog and don’t do anything to notify or protect other tenants and visitors.
In New York the statute of limitations for personal injury lawsuits is three years. (NY C.P.L.R. Law § 214.) That means the victim of a dog attack has three years from the date of the incident to file a lawsuit against the owner or anyone else who might be legally responsible. Of course, someone who thinks they may be entitled to compensation for injuries or property damage is better off pursuing their legal options well before the statute of limitations approaches.
As we’ve seen, New York state’s dog laws can sometimes get complicated. And, in addition to these statewide laws, municipalities have a lot of latitude to make and enforce their own animal control and licensing rules. If you have questions about how these laws apply to your situation, you might find it helpful to work with a local attorney with experience handling these kinds of cases. As you get started, make sure you know what to ask so you can find the right lawyer for your case.
The state also has laws covering when dog owners can be criminally liable, how local governments can deal with dangerous dogs, and more. Here’s what you need to know if you own a dog or have suffered a bite in Indiana.
Dog owners are strictly liable for bite injuries if:
(Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3.) The most obvious situation where this law applies is when a dog bites a mail carrier who is delivering mail on the dog owner’s property.
This is a so-called “strict liability” law because, when it applies, the dog owner is legally responsible for the victim’s injuries even if they took precautions, or didn’t have any reason to believe that their dog might be vicious or prone to bite.
Keep in mind that this law doesn’t apply if:
So, for example, this law wouldn’t apply to a mail carrier who tripped and sprained an ankle while running from an aggressive dog, or to a mail carrier who was bitten while walking across the owner’s property after work.
Both of those situations would be covered by the rule we’ll talk about next.
In Indiana, most personal injury cases involving dogs come down to the common law standard of negligence. A dog owner in Indiana is negligent, and therefore responsible for a victim’s injuries, if:
So, when should an owner know about a danger posed by their dog? According to Indiana courts, there are two kinds of danger an owner is legally required to guard against.
Past behavior. First, an owner needs to protect people from any recurrence of violent or dangerous behavior that they know (or should know) their dog has exhibited in the past. Indiana law calls this kind of behavior “a known or dangerous propensity.”
Take, for example, a dog that has snapped at people without provocation in the past. Assume the owner doesn’t take steps to protect against biting—say, by muzzling the dog or keeping it on a very short leash on walks. The owner would be considered negligent if the dog bites someone as a result of the failure to protect against biting.
These rules also apply to injuries other than bites. For instance, an owner has a legal responsibility to restrain a large, friendly dog that likes to run full-speed and jump on people.
Natural propensities. Second, an owner needs to be aware of, and take reasonable care to protect people from, a dog’s “natural propensities.” Unlike a tendency to bite without provocation (a relatively rare behavior in domesticated dogs), “natural propensities” are things you could expect any dog to do in certain situations.
So, for example, let’s say the owner of a well-behaved dog with no history of biting takes it to an extremely crowded street fair. Despite seeing that the crowd is dense and rowdy, the owner walks into it with the dog. The dog gets agitated and bites someone who happens to be close by. The bite victim could bring a negligence suit against the owner, arguing that a responsible owner would know that any dog might become agitated and act out in that situation.
A version of these negligence rules applies to landlords whose tenants keep dogs on the property. A landlord can sometimes be liable for injuries inflicted by a tenant’s dog, but only if:
(Morehead v. Deitrich, 932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).) In this context, “control” is determined by whether the landlord or the tenant is in charge of who comes and goes and what happens on the part of the property in question.
For instance, if an apartment landlord knew that a tenant’s dog had a history of biting, Indiana law would impose a duty to make sure the dog is properly restrained when it’s in the building’s common areas. But a landlord who rents a house with a fenced-in yard to the same tenant wouldn’t be responsible for the dog’s behavior while it’s in the house or confined to the yard.
Even an owner who acknowledges that their dog bit or injured someone could have several defenses under Indiana law.
If a mail carrier or other government employee sues under strict liability, the owner could argue that the employee doesn’t meet the requirements to bring a case using that law. If the owner wins that argument, then the employee would have to prove that the owner’s negligence led to the incident in question.
Strict liability doesn’t apply if the dog owner can show that the employee:
(Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3.) If a judge rejects a strict liability claim, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the dog owner wins—the plaintiff could still succeed with a negligence claim.
Every state has its own approach for deciding what to do if the owner and the victim share some responsibility for an injury inflicted by a dog. In Indiana, an owner who is sued for negligence can argue that their liability is reduced or eliminated by the state’s “contributory fault” rules.
In Indiana, a judge or jury (whichever one is deciding the case) assigns the plaintiff and the defendant a percentage of the fault for the defendant’s injuries.
The plaintiff can still recover damages from the defendant if they’re up to 50% responsible. But the amount of their compensatory damages (to cover things like medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering) will be reduced in proportion to their own level of fault.
Plaintiffs who are more than 50% responsible, though, won’t receive any money at all.
So, what can make plaintiffs fully or partially responsible for their own injuries in a dog attack?
Provocation. The most common way a victim can be partly or totally responsible is by doing something that a reasonable person should have known would provoke the dog, like teasing it, abusing it, or trying to attack or threaten its owner.
But provoking a dog doesn’t automatically make someone fully responsible for everything that happens next. For example, a bite victim might be fully responsible for a minor bite if they startled a dog. Yet if the dog responded to that kind of innocent mistake by attacking and seriously injuring the victim, the owner would probably still bear most of the responsibility.
Trespassing. Unlike many states, Indiana doesn’t make a trespasser fully responsible for their own injuries if they’re attacked by the property owner’s dog. If someone is on a dog owner’s property without permission, that could allow the owner to argue that the trespasser shares some of the blame for their own injuries. But a dog owner in Indiana owes the same duty of reasonable care to a trespasser as they do to anyone else. (Martin v. Hayduk, 91 N.E.3d 601 (Ind. App. 2017).)
Every state has statutes of limitations that create deadlines for filing civil lawsuits. These deadlines vary from state to state, and also based on what the lawsuit is about.
Indiana’s statute of limitations for personal injury cases is two years. So, if you’ve been hurt by someone’s dog, you usually have two years from the date of the incident to file your case. Otherwise, you probably lose your right to sue.
In addition to civil lawsuits, Indiana owners can sometimes face criminal charges for injuries inflicted by their dogs. An owner can be convicted of a misdemeanor if:
(Ind. Code § 15-20-1-4.) Owners face more serious penalties for repeat offenses, or if the victim is seriously injured. In the most serious cases—where the owner intentionally or recklessly failed to control their dog, and the dog then kills someone—the owner could be charged with a felony.
Unlike in civil cases, in a criminal case, the government must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (In a civil case it just has to be more likely than not that the defendant is legally responsible.)
In Indiana dangerous dogs are regulated both by state law and by local rules.
Unlike their owners, dogs can’t be charged with crimes. But if the owner has committed one of the crimes covered above, there can be consequences for the animal too.
As long as there’s probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, a dog can be impounded pending a court hearing to decide what will happen to it. Dogs can also be taken from their owners and impounded if they’re being abused or neglected. (Ind. Code § 35-46-3-6.)
Based on the facts and on a recommendation from a veterinarian, a judge will decide whether the animal should be confiscated from its owner in order to protect the public (or for the dog’s own well-being). If the owner is convicted of the crime they were charged with, then the court can also bar the owner from owning animals or put conditions on that ownership.
In addition to these statewide laws, municipalities in Indiana have their own regulations to protect the public from dangerous dogs and other animals. For example, Marion County (home to Indianapolis) has rules that apply:
(Marion, Ind. Code of Ordinances, ch. 96, §§ 23, 24, 32.) Marion County, like other municipalities in Indiana, has a process for deciding when a dog’s violent or threatening behavior requires the owner to take safety precautions or necessitates euthanizing the animal.
Whether you own a dog in Indiana or have been injured by someone else’s pet, it’s important to know your legal rights and obligations. If you’ve been involved in a serious incident, or have specific questions about your situation, consider speaking with a lawyer. As we’ve seen, Indiana has a variety of state and local rules that could be important to your case. So you should make sure you know what to ask to find an attorney with the right experience to help.
Massachusetts, like most states, takes a “strict liability” approach to injuries and property damage caused by dogs.
Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, Section 155, an owner can be held civilly liable even if they didn’t know their dog might be dangerous, and even if they took precautions to protect people and property from their dog.
Strict liability contrasts with the so-called “one-bite rule” used by some states. Under that approach, an owner can be liable for a victim’s injuries only if they had reason to know their dog might be dangerous.
Many states have one law that covers dog bites, and another for other injuries caused by dogs. In Massachusetts, though, the same strict liability law applies to bites, other injuries, and property damage.
So, suppose that someone is walking in a public park when a dog breaks free of its leash and jumps on her. She falls to the ground and, in the process, breaks her wrist and shatters the screen of her phone. Under Massachusetts law, the owner could be held legally responsible for the injury and property damage—even if the owner did everything he could to prevent the incident.
Under Massachusetts’s strict liability rule, an owner is legally responsible for their dog’s behavior even when they aren’t in control of—or even in the same location as—their pet. That means, for example, that the owner could face a lawsuit if their dog injures someone while it’s being walked by a pet sitter or being taken care of by a friend.
But the state’s strict liability law applies not only to a dog’s owner, but also to its “keeper.” A “keeper” is someone who doesn’t necessarily own the dog, but has control and custody of it. The keeper could be a professional being paid by the owner, like a veterinarian or a dog walker, or just a friend or relative who has agreed to look after the animal.
Lawsuits where a “keeper” might be liable can be complicated for two reasons:
If you have questions about issues like these, you could benefit from speaking with an attorney who can advise you based on the facts of your case.
Even under strict liability, Massachusetts doesn’t hold owners responsible for injuries and property damage caused by their dog if, at the time of the incident, the victim was:
(Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 155.) Keep in mind that someone who is entitled to be on private property—for example, a mail carrier or an invited guest—is not trespassing.
Massachusetts has special rules that apply to younger dog owners and younger victims:
(Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 155.)
A dog-bite victim can bring a lawsuit under the strict liability rules described above. But victims can also bring injury claims over dog bites under Massachusetts's general rules for negligence.
A negligence lawsuit is harder to win than one brought under a strict liability standard, because plaintiffs in negligence cases have to show not only that they were harmed but also that the harm was caused by the defendant’s carelessness.
This carelessness requirement means that it normally wouldn’t make sense for a victim who can bring a lawsuit based on strict liability to sue for negligence instead. But there are times when a negligence lawsuit could be the right option for a victim. That’s because Massachusetts’s strict liability statute specifies that it covers a dog’s “owners or keepers.”
Take a situation where an owner lets their large dog roam freely through an apartment complex, ignoring the building’s rules against letting dogs off-leash in common areas. Residents complain repeatedly, but the building’s owners take no action. If the dog knocks someone down and injures them, the victim might have:
Negligence can also come into play when the victim is an animal worker like a veterinarian. As we discussed earlier, under Massachusetts law an animal provider temporarily becomes the dog’s “keeper” while it’s in their custody. Since they’re temporarily responsible for the animal’s behavior, they can’t bring a strict liability lawsuit against the owner if the dog hurts them.
But a vet or kennel worker could still sue for negligence—arguing, for example, that the owners knew their dog was unusually dangerous and should have warned anyone who’d have to handle the animal. (Remember that if the victim is a third party—like someone in the business’ waiting room—they could have a strict liability claim against either the dog’s owner or the “keeper” who was temporarily responsible for the animal.)
If you sue a dog owner or handler, your lawsuit will follow the same process as other personal injury lawsuits in Massachusetts. The rules for damages are mostly the same, too—if an owner is found liable for your injuries or damaged property, they (or their insurance) are required to pay you compensation.
But Massachusetts also has a damages law designed to penalize owners of dangerous dogs who fail to control their pets. This law applies to owners of dogs that have been deemed dangerous and then go on to either:
In these kinds of cases, the dog owner is liable for three times the amount of damages they’d normally owe the plaintiff. If, for instance, a jury decides that an injured person is owed $5,000 to cover their medical expenses and other damages, that award would automatically increase to $15,000.
Massachusetts, like all states, sets deadlines that require plaintiffs to file civil lawsuits within a certain period of time. The Massachusetts statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three years. That means you have three years to file a negligence or strict liability lawsuit if someone’s dog has injured you or damaged your property.
Local governments in Massachusetts can deem a dog a “dangerous dog” or a “nuisance dog” based on its behavior.
In very serious cases, dangerous dogs can be taken from their owners and euthanized. It’s much more common, though, for local governments to order owners of dangerous dogs and nuisance dogs to take steps that protect the public from dangers or disruptions caused by their animals. The consequences of disobeying these orders can be serious both for owners and their dogs.
“Dangerous” dogs, as the name implies, are in a more serious category than nuisance dogs. In Massachusetts, a “dangerous dog” is a canine that has:
Massachusetts law prohibits municipalities from deeming a dog dangerous—or imposing any special regulations on any dog—just because of its breed. Dogs also can’t be deemed dangerous just because of their growling or barking.
Additionally, Massachusetts recognizes that there are times when it might be reasonable for a dog to threaten or attack a person or animal. As long as the dog’s behavior isn’t “grossly disproportionate” under the circumstances, it can’t be deemed dangerous for an attack or threatening behavior if:
Like the state’s strict liability rules, its rules for dangerous dogs treat children under age seven differently. There’s a presumption (which a dog owner can rebut with evidence) that a very young child couldn’t have been committing a crime, provoking a dog, or trespassing. (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 157(a)(4).)
According to Massachusetts law, a “nuisance dog” is a canine that:
Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, Section 157, anyone can make a written complaint to their local government if they think a dog owned or kept in their town is dangerous or a nuisance. The complaint should be made to the “hearing authority,” which is the local government official or police officer in charge of handling dog complaints.
The hearing authority will then investigate to decide if the dog really is a nuisance dog or a dangerous dog. That investigation includes a public hearing where the person who made the complaint is questioned under oath.
If the complaint accused the dog of being a nuisance dog, the hearing authority can either:
If the complaint accused the dog of being a dangerous dog, the hearing authority can:
If a dog is deemed a nuisance dog, the hearing authority can order the owner to take steps to address the causes of the dog’s behavior.
If a dog is deemed a dangerous dog, the hearing authority must issue at least one order from a list laid out in Massachusetts law. The possible orders are that:
Under Massachusetts law, these orders have to be carried out humanely. For example, there are requirements for how a dog can be confined, and a dog can’t be spayed or neutered if a veterinarian thinks it has a medical condition that makes the procedure inappropriate. (Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 157(c).)
An owner who disagrees with the hearing authority’s decision has 10 days to contest it by filing a petition in state court. A court official called a magistrate will review the hearing authority’s order and listen to the same witnesses who testified at the original hearing. A magistrate can only overturn a hearing authority’s decision if they think it was made in bad faith or without proper cause.
There is also a final level of review available to an owner who disagree with the magistrate’s decision. The owner can file an appeal asking a judge to review the case. The judge has more leeway than the magistrate to make their own decision about the dog, regardless of what the hearing authority originally decided. The judge can agree with the owner and dismiss the case, or decide to deem the animal a nuisance dog or dangerous dog.
Once a judge makes a decision, it’s final. The owner can’t appeal, and neither can the town nor the person who originally made the complaint.
Owners who don’t comply with orders about their dogs risk serious consequences both for themselves and for their pets.
Owners can be punished with a fine of up to $500 and up to 60 days in jail. For a second offense, the penalty could be a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.
If a judge thinks there’s probable cause (in other words, a good reason) to believe that an owner isn’t complying with an order about their dog, they can issue any additional order they think is necessary to protect other animals or the public. These orders can include that the dog be restrained, confined, or impounded. The government can also permanently take away the animal, and ban the owner from licensing a dog in Massachusetts for five years.
In addition to the civil penalties we’ve discussed above, it’s possible for a dog owner to be charged with a crime under the state's general criminal laws if they order their dog to attack another person.
For example, in a 2005 case, a jury found a man guilty of ordering his dog to bite a woman’s hand after an argument. The man was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. An appeals court later confirmed that, given the evidence, it was reasonable to say that the man had used his dog as a dangerous weapon.
Whether you own a dog or have concerns about one in your neighborhood, it’s important to know how local law applies to your situation. Remember that, in addition to the requirements of Massachusetts state law, each town and city can make its own rules covering dog licensing and animal control. Your best bet is to look up your town’s regulations online—Boston, for example, has a website with information for pet owners in the city.
It may be helpful to speak to a lawyer if you have specific questions about your situation. As we’ve seen, incidents involving dogs can raise questions involving personal injury law, animal law, and even criminal law—so it’s important to seek out an attorney with the right experience for your case.
If you own a dog—or if you’ve been injured by a dog—in Maryland, here’s what you need to know:
In Maryland, dog owners are automatically responsible for injuries and property damage caused by their dogs when:
Maryland’s dog injury law covers all injuries inflicted by dogs, not just dog bites. For example, if you broke your tailbone when you were knocked down by an unleashed dog in a park, you could sue the owner for your injuries and other losses (called "damages").
Dog owners aren't liable for injuries caused by their dogs when the injured person was:
(Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 (2022).)
A person injured by a dog in Maryland may bring a claim under the state's strict liability law or file a negligence claim. In order to win a dog injury lawsuit based on negligence, the injured person typically has to show that:
For example, let’s say that you were invited as a guest to a dog owner’s home. The dog owner has a young German Shepard. The dog owner knows that the German Shepard is rambuncious and not fully trained. Nevertheless, the dog owner lets the large dog run loose in the house. The dog lunges at you in the kitchen and takes a bite out of your leg. Your pants are torn, your skin is cut and bruised, and you develop a fear of dogs that causes you a lot of anxiety and sleepless nights.
You can file a claim with the dog owner's liability insurance or file a civil lawsuit in court based on the dog owner’s negligence. The dog owner had a duty to control the dog and protect invited guests from attacks. The dog owner's failure to control the dog caused you harm when the dog bit you.
Learn more about dog owners’ liability for bites and other injuries.
Maryland has a dangerous dog law. A dangerous dog is defined as a dog that:
Owners of dangerous dogs are required to follow a number of rules. For example, they must keep the dog on their own property, and they must muzzle and restrain the dog when the dog travels off the property. An owner who violates these rules may be charged with a misdemeanor and fined up to $2,500.
(Md. Code, Crim Law § 10-619 (2022).)
Maryland’s dog-bite statute (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901) lays out three of the most common defenses raised in dog-bite cases:
Dog owners in Maryland may also raise the defense of contributory negligence. If an owner can show that the injured person shares blame for the injury, the injured person can't recover damages. For example, if an owner can show that the injured person startled the dog and bears even a slight amount of blame for the incident, the injured person can't recover any compensation. Maryland is one of only a handful of states that follows this tough rule. Most states follow comparative negligence rules, which allow for reduced financial recovery when an injured person shares blame for an injury.
If you’ve been hurt by a dog, or someone has accused your dog of causing harm, talk to a lawyer. Dog-bite lawsuits are emotionally draining and financially costly. The Insurance Information Institute (III) estimates that there were around 18,000 dog-related injury claims in 2021 with a total value of $881.9 million.
A lawyer can walk you through your legal options, answer your questions, and advocate for you throughout the insurance claim process and in court. Learn more about getting help from a personal injury lawyer. When you’re ready, you can connect with a lawyer directly from this page for free.
]]>The majority of states in the U.S. have “strict liability” statutes that make dog owners responsible for most dog-bite injuries, even if the dog didn’t have a history of being aggressive or the owner wasn’t negligent. Under Pennsylvania’s limited version of this kind of law, any time a dog bites or attacks someone, the owner must pay all of the victim’s related medical costs. However, the law doesn’t make the owner responsible for other damages, like pain and suffering or lost income. (3 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 459-502(b)(1).)
If you’ve been hurt by someone else’s dog, you may have another way of getting compensation for your damages: by suing the animal’s owner for negligence (legalese for being unreasonably careless). Pennsylvania courts have set out some rules for what it takes to win a dog-related negligence case in the state. The victim must prove that the owner
A dog might show vicious tendencies without actually biting anyone. At the same time, a single previous bite doesn’t necessarily make a dog vicious. (See, for example, Deardorff v. Burger, 606 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).)
Courts will generally conclude that dog owners were negligent if they violated the state law that requires dogs to be restrained at all times (see 3 Pa. Stat. § 459-305; Miller v. Hurst, 448 A.2d 614 (Pa. Super. 1982)). This is also true if owners don’t meet the legal requirements for dealing with dangerous dogs (more on that below).
Dog owners may have legal defenses when they’re sued for injuries their animals have caused. For instance, the owner may argue that the victim:
Under Pennsylvania’s “comparative negligence” rule, a victim who was more at fault than the owner won’t receive any compensation for the injury. But if the victim’s share of the blame was 50 percent or less, the compensation will simply be reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of fault. (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102.)
A Pennsylvania dog owner could be charged with a “summary offense” (a low-level crime similar to a traffic violation) for harboring a dangerous dog if the animal has a history of unprovoked attacks or vicious tendencies and has:
An owner who’s found guilty of this crime will be fined (as much as $500) and will have to meet several requirements, including:
Misdemeanor charges will follow if the owner doesn’t meet these requirements, or the dangerous dog attacks a human or domestic animal as a result of the owner’s intentional, reckless, or negligent actions. In addition, the animal will be destroyed. (3 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 459-502-A — 459-507-A.)
If someone is suing you over a dog bite or other injury that your dog supposedly caused, consider speaking with a personal injury lawyer. An attorney experienced in this area can explain how Pennsylvania law applies to your situation and what defenses you might have. If you’re facing criminal charges under the state’s dangerous-dog law, a criminal defense lawyer can help protect your rights.
]]>