Strict Liability Dog-Bite Laws

When a dog hurts someone, the injured person is likely to sue the animal’s owner for medical costs and other damages. In more than half of the states, those lawsuits may be based on laws that make the owner 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 dog owner was negligent (legalese for "careless") or knew that the dog was dangerous (often called the “one-bite rule”).

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. But a few states have dog-bite statutes that aren’t really all that strict, because they apply only under conditions that may be under the owner’s control—like when the dog is roaming “at large.”

Also, dog owners may have legal defenses to avoid liability for dog bites. Most dog-bite laws include exceptions—typically when the injured person was trespassing or provoked the dog. And many of the laws don't apply if the dog was performing its duties as a police dog when the bite happened.

Only Bites or More?

Some of the strict-liability statutes are limited to the injuries that result from an actual dog bite. But most 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 the 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)).

Other Bites at the Apple

In almost all states, dog-bite statutes don't affect the other rules for suing someone who’s responsible for an injury caused by a dog. Depending on the situation, that means an injured person may sue based on a strict liability statute, the owner’s negligence, or the one-bite rule. If a court finds that one of those doesn’t apply, it could still allow the case to move forward on another legal principle.

Chart: Strict-Liability Dog-Bite Statutes in the States

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. Because states can change their laws at any time, it’s always a good idea to check the current statutes (by clicking on the links in the table). 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.