Strict Liability Dog-Bite Laws

Dogs are beloved companions in millions of households in the United States. But they also pose a potential safety risk. According to the Insurance Information Institute (III), about 4.5 million people—mostly children—are bitten by dogs each year.

When a dog hurts someone, the injured person can file an insurance claim or sue the animal's owner for medical costs and other damages. More than half of the states have laws that make animal owners automatically liable for most dog-bite injuries. These laws are often called "strict liability" statutes because the injured person doesn't have to prove that the animal's owner knew the dog was dangerous (often called the "one-bite rule") or that the dog owner was negligent (a legal term for "careless").

In this article, we'll outline how strict liability dog-bite laws work in general and highlight the main features of the laws in states that have them.

How Strict Is the Liability?

The theory behind strict liability statutes is that anyone who has a dog should be responsible for any damage it causes, period. These statutes therefore make an owner liable for bites and other injuries without requiring the victim to prove that:

• the owner was careless, or
• the owner knew their dog might be dangerous.

Instead, the plaintiff in a strict liability case just has to show that:

• they were injured by the dog
• the dog was owned by (or, in some cases, under the control of) the defendant, and
• they didn't do anything to make themselves responsible for their own injuries.

This final point can be crucial in a dog-bite case, because dog owners may have legal defenses even if they're sued under a strict liability law. These defenses can include that the victim was trespassing, or provoked the dog. In addition, many states provide strong protections for police and military dogs, making it hard to successfully sue the government for a bite.

Sometimes these exceptions to strict liability are written into the dog-bite statute. But courts can also recognize exceptions that aren't directly mentioned in a statute. For example, California's dog-bite statute has explicit language that prevents trespassers from recovering damages under a strict liability theory. But the California Supreme Court has also ruled that owners aren't strictly liable for bites when their dogs are provoked. The court reasoned that the strict liability statute added to California law, but didn't eliminate older legal principles that prevent people from collecting damages if they voluntarily put themselves in a risky situation. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 (2025); Gomes v. Byrne, 51 Cal. 2d 418 (1959).)

Does the Law Cover Bites Only or Other Injuries and Property Damage too?

Some of the strict liability statutes are limited to dog-bite injuries. But many of them also cover other injuries, such as when a dog causes an accident by chasing a motorcycle or bicycle. Depending on the conditions, however, those laws might not cover a situation when someone is injured because a dog was acting playfully or just going about its business. For example, Nebraska's statute applies only when the dog has killed, injured, chased, or bothered a person or another animal. Because of that, the state's supreme court ruled that a dog owner wasn't liable for an injury that resulted when a puppy sat down in front of a recreational vehicle, causing the driver to swerve and hit a fence. (Holden ex rel. Holden v. Schwer, 394 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. 1993).)

Even in states that limit the owner's liability to bite injuries, courts may interpret the laws to apply when there wasn't broken skin or a wound from the "bite." For instance, a California court found that a dog owner was liable for injuries that resulted when a man fell off a ladder after the dog grabbed his leg in its jaws (Johnson v. McMahon, 68 Cal. App. 4th 173 (1998)).

More Than One Standard for Liability

It's common for states to have more than one legal standard for evaluating an owner's responsibility for injuries caused by their pet. Sometimes the standard depends on the specifics of the incident. For example, in Maine:

• A dog owner is strictly liable for if their dog injures someone while off the owner's property.
• A victim must prove the owner was negligent if they were injured while on the owner's property.

(Me. Rev. Stat., tit. 7, § 3961 (2025).)

The liability standard in a dog-bite case can also depend on what kind of damages the victim is seeking. In Oregon, for example, owners are strictly liable for a victim's economic damages, but victims are only entitled to other compensation if:

• the owner was negligent, or
• the owner knew (or should have known) that their dog was "abnormally dangerous."

(Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.360 (2025); Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.705 (2025); Westberry v. Blackwell, 282 Or. 129 (1978).)

A few states also combine the three main legal standards in ways that make it hard to categorize them as, for example, "strict liability" or "one-bite" states. Georgia's dog-bite law, for instance, uses a version of the one-bite rule, but also adds a negligence requirement. In that state, an owner is liable if their dog is considered "vicious or dangerous," and the incident was the result of:

• the owner's negligence, or
• the owner allowing the animal off of their property without a leash.

Georgia law also uses a concept called negligence per se--under state law a dog is automatically considered "vicious and dangerous" if the owner allows it to roam freely in violation of a local leash ordinance.

(Ga. Code § 51-2-7 (2025).)

Chart: Strict Liability Dog-Bite Laws in Your State

The chart below shows the main features of the statutes in the states that have strict liability (or "sort of strict" liability) dog-bite laws. In states that aren't listed here, lawsuits for dog bites must be based on either the dog owner's negligence or the one-bite rule. (If you have questions about a specific state, you can look for it in this state-by-state guide to dog-bite laws.)

Note that this chart is current as of November 2025. Because states can change their laws at any time, it's always a good idea to check the current statutes. (You can find your state's laws by searching on this Library of Congress guide to state laws).

Talk to a Lawyer

In some cases, it can make sense to take a dog-bite lawsuit to small claims court. But if you've been injured by a dog, or someone has accused your pet of harming them, you may want to speak with an attorney. As we've discussed, dog bite lawsuits sometimes turn on complicated legal rules, and they can be emotionally draining both for the injured person and the pet owner. The stakes can also be high, especially if a victim has been seriously injured or an owner is at risk of losing their pet.

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.