Imagine you take a leisurely walk in your neighborhood when, suddenly, a dog lunges out at you from behind a bush and bites you. In the aftermath of the attack, you face medical bills and emotional trauma. But most of all, you wonder, “Who bears responsibility for this?”
The answer depends on the dog bite laws in your state. These laws influence who is responsible when dogs attack and specify the circumstances that may make owners liable. State dog bite laws also help determine compensation for injuries, including infections that occur after dog bites.
Understanding variations in dog bite liability laws by state aids in navigating the legal landscape and helps ensure justice gets served. In this article, we explore the basics of dog bite laws, how those laws differ by state, and how USClaims can help your clients with strong, pending cases related to dog attacks by providing pre-settlement funding.
Key Points
- State dog bite laws vary significantly and have different penalties.
- Strict liability laws hold the owner liable in most cases.
- States with one-bite rules give owners more leeway when injuries occur.
Dog Bite Law Basics
Designed to protect victims and encourage responsible pet ownership, states’ dog attack laws generally fall under two main categories: strict liability and the one-bite rule.[1][3]
Strict liability laws hold owners responsible for injuries caused by their dogs, regardless of past behavior. By contrast, the one-bite rule protects owners of dogs with no previous history of biting or aggressive behavior, provided they had no reason to know their dog was dangerous.
Strict Liability
Strict liability laws hold dog owners automatically responsible for any injuries their pets cause.[1] Whether the dog has shown signs of aggression in the past or the owner had no prior knowledge of aggressive tendencies, these laws on dog bites help ensure victims get just compensation without the burden of proving the owner’s negligence.[1] It’s worth noting that even in strict liability states, there can be exceptions depending on how laws are structured (e.g., if the victim was trespassing or provoking the dog).
One-Bite Rule
The one-bite rule generally gives dog owners the benefit of the doubt, only holding them responsible after the first instance of poor behavior unless the dog owner knew or should have known about the dog’s dangerous tendencies.[2] Essentially, owners are considered aware of the potential risk after the first incident and can be held liable for future incidents.
Keep in mind that this rule doesn’t exempt owners from responsibility for compensatory damages such as medical bills—damages that pre-settlement funding can help cover while cases play out.
Dog Bite Laws State by State
While the United States has no singular law regarding dog bites, states have unique laws, statutes, and regulations that may differ significantly from their neighbors. Consider these state laws when you explain dog bite lawsuit funding to your clients so they understand how liability and the types of laws in place may affect their cases.[1][3]
| State | Details | Special Rules | Statutes/Case Law |
| Alabama | Strict liability if dogs attack a legally present victim unprovoked on the dog owner’s property | Exceptions made that mitigate damages for owners who didn’t realize the dog’s aggressiveness | Ala. Code § 3-6-1 |
| Alaska | Owners have responsibility under normal negligence laws that determine liability | Sinclair v. Okata | |
| Arizona | Strict liability for bites occurring on public property or while victim lawfully visits private property | Owners can argue provocation as a defense | Ariz. Rev. Statutes sections 11-1020, 11-1025, 11-1026 |
| Arkansas | Owners held liable based on normal negligence rules or if they knew of the dog’s dangerous tendencies | Criminal liability may apply if owners knew about dog’s dangerous propensities | Strange v. Stovall |
| California | Strict liability when unprovoked dog attacks on public property or during lawful visits to private property | Liability exceptions made for police dogs | Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 |
| Colorado | One-bite rule applies in most cases, but serious bodily injury falls under strict liability | Exceptions for provocation, trespass and posted “beware of dog” signage | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-124 |
| Connecticut | Owners liable unless victim trespassed, abused the dog, or committed a crime | Exceptions made for police dogs, presumption against trespass for victims 7 and under | Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 22-357 |
| Delaware | Strict liability unless victim trespassed, abused the dog, or committed a crime | Exceptions for police dogs and dogs protecting people | Del. Code Ann. § 16:3074 |
| Florida | Strict liability unless victim trespassed, abused the dog, or committed a crime | Exceptions when owners have “bad dog” sign posted; comparative fault gauges victim liability | Fla. Stat. sections 767.01, 767.04 |
| Georgia | Strict liability for dangerous animals or off-leash/out-of-control dogs | Victims must prove dog’s dangerous propensities | Ga. Code Ann. sections 51-2-7 |
| Hawaii | Strict liability when owners proven negligent | Exceptions for trespassing and animal abuse | Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 663-9 |
| Idaho | One-bite rule applies | Exceptions for trespassing, animal abuse, criminal acts, interference with hunting dogs and service animals | Idaho Code § 25-2810 |
| Illinois | Strict liability | Exceptions for trespassing and provocation | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/16 § 16 |
| Indiana | Strict liability for attacks to state and federal workers (e.g., postal workers); negligence rules in all other cases | Exceptions for trespassing and provocation | Ind. Code 15-20-1-3 |
| Iowa | Strict liability | Exceptions for bites sustained during illegal acts and some instances of rabies | Iowa Code Ann. § 351.28 |
| Kansas | One-bite rule applies with negligent owners liable | Mercer v. Fritts, Henkel v. Jordan | |
| Kentucky | Strict liability for people, livestock, and property | Ky. Rev. Stat. § 258.235 | |
| Louisiana | Strict liability if owner can prevent bite | Exceptions for provocation | La. C.C. Art. § 2321 |
| Maine | Strict liability for bites of the owner’s property | Victims may have to show lack of fault | Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 3961 |
| Maryland | Strict liability for at-large dogs | Exceptions for provocation, trespassing, and animal abuse | Code of Maryland § 3-1901 |
| Massachusetts | Strict liability with exceptions for provocation and trespassing | Victims under age 7 considered unprovoked and not trespassing | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 140 § 155 |
| Michigan | Strict liability on public property and when legally on private property | Exceptions for provocation and trespassing | Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.351 |
| Minnesota | Strict liability for bites occurring in public places or lawfully on private property | Exceptions for provocation and trespassing | Minn. Stat. Ann. § 347.22 |
| Mississippi | One-bite rule | Liability when owner knows dog has dangerous propensities | Poy v. Grayson |
| Missouri | Strict liability for unprovoked attacks on public or if lawfully on private property | Owners found liable pay a $1,000 fine/ Courts may reduce damages due to victim fault | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 |
| Montana | Strict liability in incorporated cities and towns | Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715 | |
| Nebraska | Strict liability | Exceptions for playful dogs and trespassers | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 |
| Nevada | Negligence rules apply and state may charge owners with felony for vicious dog bites | Nev. Stat. Ann. § 202.500 | |
| New Hampshire | Strict liability for all injuries | Exceptions for trespassing and other criminal acts | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 466:19 |
| New Jersey | Strict liability on public and lawfully on private property | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-16 | |
| New Mexico | Strict liability if owner knew about dog’s dangerous propensities | Courts may also hold owners liable for negligence | Smith v. Village of Ruidoso |
| New York | Strict liability for dangerous dogs with exceptions for defending humans | Victims must prove owner negligence for nonphysical damages | N.Y. Agriculture & Markets Law, § 123(10) |
| North Carolina | Strict liability for at-large and known dangerous dogs | Victims may also sue for owner negligence | N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 67-12, 67-4.4, 67-4.1 |
| North Dakota | Strict liability under negligence rules | Sendelbach v. Grad | |
| Ohio | Strict liability for injuries due to the dog’s behavior | Exceptions for trespassing, criminal acts, and provocation | Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 955.28 |
| Oklahoma | Strict liability for unprovoked attacks on public or lawfully on private property | Okla. Stat. Ann. § 4-42.1 | |
| Oregon | Strict liability for dogs with known dangerous tendencies | Provocation may mitigate damages awarded victims | Westberry v. Blackwell |
| Pennsylvania | One-bite rule applies in most circumstances | Strict liability for severe, unprovoked injuries | Pa. Consol. Stat. § 502 A |
| Rhode Island | Strict liability for unprovoked injuries caused by unconfined dogs to lawfully present visitors | Owners not liable for pets confined on their property | R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-13-16 |
| South Carolina | Strict liability for injuries caused by dogs on public property or to those lawfully on private property | S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 | |
| South Dakota | Strict liability under negligence rules and if owners knew the dog exhibited dangerous behaviors | Blaha v. Stuard | |
| Tennessee | Strict liability for injuries caused by pet, no matter the dog’s previous behavior | Exceptions for injuries to trespassers or those causing harm to others; exceptions for police dogs in their official capacities | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 |
| Texas | Strict liability for all unprovoked bites and attacks to lawfully present victims | Victims can claim damages for leash law violations, negligence, and owner-caused injuries | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 822.005 |
| Utah | Strict liability for injuries caused by dog, regardless of previous behavior | Exceptions for peace officers, counties, cities, and towns when law enforcement animals injure civilians | Utah Code Ann. § 18-1-1 |
| Vermont | Strict liability when victims can prove owners knew dog’s dangerous propensities | Hillier v. Noble | |
| Virginia | Owners have common law duty to exercise care and liability when they have knowledge of dog’s dangerous propensities and the animal attacks humans and service animals | Exceptions for trespassers, attacks against intruders, provocation, harm to dog’s offspring, and animal abuse | Butler v. Frieden |
| Washington | Strict liability for unprovoked attacks and bites in public and to lawful visitors on private property | Exceptions for bites and attacks by law enforcement animals | Wash. Rev. Code § 16-08-040 |
| West Virginia | Strict liability if dog has at-large status at the time of the attack or bite | W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 | |
| Wisconsin | One-bite rule and $50 to $2,500 penalty applies for first offense where dog injures people, domestic animals, property, or other wild animals | Second offense doubles victims’ damages and penalties for the second bite or attack | Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(a) and Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) |
| Wyoming | Strict liability if victims prove negligence or knowledge of dog’s violent behavior | Awards determined by comparative fault that assigns liability to both parties | Borns ex rel. Gannon v. Voss |
| Washington, D.C. | Strict liability for at-large dogs off their leashes in public spaces | Contributory negligence by victims may reduce awards if they share responsibility for injuries | D.C. Code Ann. § 8-1808 |
How USClaims Can Help Your Clients
When you’re representing those affected by a dog bite, understanding the nuances of state dog bite laws can aid in building a strong case.
While you work diligently to ensure the best possible outcome for your clients, USClaims can provide pre-settlement funding that supports their financial well-being, including money to cover medical expenses and lost wages. Partnering with a reputable pre-settlement funding provider like USClaims gives you options to help clients who need some financial padding while they focus on recovery. Check out our settlement funding FAQ for more information on how it works.
Secure your clients’ financial future with help from USClaims, and feel confident doing so, thanks to attorney testimonials reflecting their clients’ satisfaction.
The availability of pre-settlement funding varies by state. Contact USClaims for more information.
Sources
- “Table of Dog Bite Strict Liability Statutes.” Michigan State University Animal Legal & Historical Center, https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-dog-bite-strict-liability-statutes. n.d.
- “One-bite rule.” Legal Information Institute (LII), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/one-bite_rule. n.d.
- “Dog Bite Law: 50-State Survey.” Justia, https://www.justia.com/injury/premises-liability/animal-dog-bites/dog-bite-law-50-state-survey/. 2023 June.
