Dog Bite Law: 50-State Survey

Dogs add comfort and companionship to the lives of many Americans. Still, the behavior of an animal is never completely predictable. Dog bites can cause devastating injuries that may lead to substantial medical costs and time missed from work. A victim also may suffer physical pain and suffering, emotional trauma, and permanent scarring. If you were bitten by a dog, you may have a right to pursue compensation for your injuries and costs from the dog owner.

States take varying approaches to liability for dog bites. A majority of states impose strict liability by statute for at least some bites. This generally means that a dog owner is required to compensate a victim if their injuries resulted from an incident covered by the statute. However, some strict liability statutes have limits. For example, the Pennsylvania statute imposes strict liability only for medical costs. The Alabama statute covers only incidents that involve the owner’s property, while the Maine statute covers all incidents except those on the owner’s property.

Injuries Other Than Bites

Some states, such as California, cover only bites in their strict liability statutes. Other states, such as Illinois, impose statutory strict liability for any injuries caused by a dog.

Other states do not impose strict liability by statute. Victims in these states often rely on a traditional doctrine called the one-bite rule, which courts have developed over time. (Victims in states with limited strict liability statutes also may rely on the one-bite rule if their situation falls outside the scope of the statute.) Different states define the one-bite rule somewhat differently, but the core idea is that a dog owner is liable if they knew or should have known that the dog had a dangerous propensity. Despite the name, this does not necessarily mean that the dog previously bit someone. Other types of threatening behavior may be enough to trigger the one-bite rule.

In some cases, a victim may be able to pursue a standard negligence claim. This generally means that the dog owner failed to use reasonable care in keeping or controlling the dog, and this caused the injuries. Sometimes a victim can use a related theory called negligence per se if a dog owner violated a law regulating dogs. The violation could serve as proof that the dog owner acted unreasonably, leaving the victim only with the task of showing causation.

Another issue that a dog bite victim will need to keep in mind is the statute of limitations. This provides the deadline for bringing a dog bite lawsuit in their state. Many states apply their standard personal injury statute of limitations to dog bite cases, but a few states have more distinctive rules.

Click on a state below to learn more about dog bite law in that state. Be aware that this area of the law is complex and nuanced, so you may want to consult an attorney to discuss a specific situation.

Alabama Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: Yes, but only when victim is or was on owner’s property
  • Key law: Alabama Code Section 3-6-1
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

The Alabama dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable to someone who is bitten or injured by the dog if they were on property owned or controlled by the dog owner when the bite or injury occurred, or when they were previously on the property and were pursued from the property by the dog. A dog owner may have a defense if the victim provoked the dog, or if the victim was not in a place where they had a legal right to be. If the dog owner can prove that they did not know of any circumstances indicating that the dog was vicious or dangerous, the owner will be liable only for the actual expenses caused by the bite or injury.

If an incident falls outside the scope of the strict liability statute, a victim must rely on a non-statutory theory of liability. The Alabama Supreme Court has observed that a dog owner is not liable for an injury caused by the dog outside the scope of the statute unless it is shown that the owner had previous knowledge of the dog’s dangerous or mischievous propensities.

Alaska Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

There is no Alaska dog bite statute. However, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that a dog owner is liable regardless of fault for injuries caused by the dog that stem from a vicious propensity of which the owner knew. A plaintiff must show that the dog owner knew or should have known that the dog had a dangerous tendency, and that this caused their injuries. The federal trial court in Alaska has emphasized that the dangerous propensity must be abnormal, while also noting that a negligence claim may be available when there is no dangerous propensity. The federal court pointed out that owners of domestic animals have a general duty to exercise reasonable care to have them under a constant and effective control.

Arizona Dog Bite Law

The Arizona dog bite statute provides that the owner of a dog that bites a person who is at a public place or lawfully at a private place, including the property of the dog owner, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten. This remains true regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness. Proof that the victim provoked the incident is a defense. Meanwhile, injuries or property damage caused by a dog at large are the full responsibility of the dog owner or the person responsible for the dog when the incident occurred. A plaintiff who suffered a non-bite injury when a dog was not at large or who cannot meet the shorter statute of limitations for the statutory claim must rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Arkansas Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 3 years

There is no Arkansas dog bite statute. The Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled that the one-bite rule (which it calls “strict liability”) applies with regard to a dog known to be vicious. For example, if an owner keeps a dog known to be vicious in a cage and takes considerable precautions to prevent its escape, the owner will be strictly liable if the dog escapes and attacks someone else, regardless of the precautions taken by the owner to prevent the dog’s escape. Meanwhile, the Arkansas Supreme Court has noted that negligence is the appropriate legal theory when a dog is not known to be vicious. For example, a dog owner has a duty to use ordinary care to keep a dog from running at large when they know or reasonably should know that the dog is likely to cause injury. A violation of an ordinance like a leash law is evidence of negligence.

California Dog Bite Law

The California dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable when the dog bites someone else while they are in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the dog owner. The statute specifically explains that the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness is irrelevant. There is an exception for certain situations involving dogs in military or police work. For a non-bite injury, a victim will need to rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Colorado Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: Yes, but only for economic damages for serious injuries
  • Key law: Colorado Code Section 13-21-124
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

The Colorado dog bite statute provides that a person who suffers serious injuries from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property can bring a civil action to recover economic damages from the dog owner. This is true regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog or the owner’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or dangerous propensities. (Some exceptions apply, such as provoking the dog.) A plaintiff can get non-economic damages only through a non-statutory theory of liability.

Connecticut Dog Bite Law

The Connecticut dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for injuries or property damage caused by the dog, unless the victim was provoking the dog or was committing a trespass or another tort at the time. A special rule applies to victims under seven years old, who are presumed not to have been provoking the dog or committing a trespass or another tort unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

Delaware Dog Bite Law

The Delaware dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for injuries or other losses caused by their dog unless the victim was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or another crime on the property of the dog owner, was committing or attempting to commit a crime against any person, or was provoking the dog.

Florida Dog Bite Law

The Florida dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable when their dog bites someone who is in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the dog owner, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness. However, if the incident was caused in part by the negligence of the victim, this will reduce the liability of the dog owner by the percentage that the victim’s negligence contributed to the incident. For a non-bite injury, a victim will need to rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Georgia Dog Bite Law

The Georgia dog bite statute provides that an owner of a “vicious or dangerous animal” who causes an injury to someone else by careless management of the animal or allowing the animal to go at liberty may be liable to the victim, unless they provoked the injury. (According to courts, the fact that the statute uses “may be” rather than “shall be” indicates that it does not impose strict liability.) One way for a plaintiff to prove the vicious propensity of a dog involves showing that it was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance, and it was not at heel or on a leash when the incident occurred.

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that even when it is shown that a dog is vicious or dangerous, proof that its owner knows of the propensities that make the dog vicious or dangerous is an essential element of a lawsuit under this statute. The Court has further concluded that this knowledge element applies even to claims under the statute that are based on a violation of a local ordinance. In this situation, a plaintiff must show either that the dog owner had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity, as defined by courts, or that the owner knew that the dog was unrestrained at the time of the injury.

Hawaii Dog Bite Law

The Hawaii dog bite statute provides that the owner of a dog that causes injuries or property damage will be liable to the victim regardless of the owner’s lack of knowledge of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the dog. If an animal is known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious, the owner is absolutely liable for injuries or property damage caused by the animal.

However, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has ruled that dogs are not dangerous, wild, or vicious by species or nature, so strict liability is not imposed on dog owners. The Court found that the statute merely eliminates the need to prove knowledge of a dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities as an element of a dog owner’s negligence. A plaintiff still must prove negligence by the dog owner to hold the owner liable for the injury. A dog owner may have a statutory defense based on provocation, illegal entry onto property, or certain other grounds.

Idaho Dog Bite Law

The Idaho dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by a dog that attacks, wounds, bites, or otherwise injures someone. There are exceptions if the victim was trespassing or if the dog was physically provoked, among other things. The statute specifically explains that liability for injuries does not depend on a prior determination that a dog is dangerous or at risk.

Illinois Dog Bite Law

The Illinois dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for civil damages when their dog attacks, attempts to attack, or injures someone who is peaceably conducting themselves in any place where they are lawfully allowed to be. There is an exception for provocation.

Indiana Dog Bite Law

The Indiana dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for damages incurred by a person whom the dog bites if the person is acting peaceably in a location where they may be required to be to discharge a duty imposed on them by state or federal law. (For example, this includes a postal worker or a law enforcement officer.) There is an exception for provocation. The law specifically states that the dog owner will be liable even if the dog has not previously behaved viciously, or the owner does not know about prior vicious behavior by the dog.

Other victims must resort to non-statutory theories of liability. The Indiana Court of Appeals has noted that the owner of a dog with vicious or dangerous propensities must use reasonable care to guard against those propensities and prevent injuries that can be reasonably anticipated from them. Without knowledge of the dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities, the owner may be liable if they are negligent in the manner of their “keeping and control” of the dog.

Iowa Dog Bite Law

The Iowa dog bite statute provides that a dog owner will be liable for injuries caused when the dog attacks or attempts to bite a person. There are exceptions for certain situations involving dogs with hydrophobia and for situations in which the victim is committing an unlawful act that is directly contributing to the injury.

Kansas Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

There is no Kansas dog bite statute. The Kansas Court of Appeals has ruled that a dog owner who does not know or have reason to know that their dog is abnormally dangerous is subject to liability for harm caused by the dog only if they intentionally cause the dog to do the harm or if they are negligent in failing to prevent the harm. The Court of Appeals further explained that this rule applies even if the injury occurs on the premises of the dog owner, so long as the condition of the premises did not contribute to the injury.

Kentucky Dog Bite Law

The Kentucky dog bite statute provides succinctly that a dog owner will be responsible for any damage that their dog causes to a person, livestock, or other property.

Louisiana Dog Bite Law

The Louisiana dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog if the owner could have prevented them and if the victim did not provoke the dog. The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff must show that a dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm to establish that the dog owner could have prevented the injuries. More generally, the statute provides that the owner of a domestic animal is responsible for the damage caused by the animal only upon a showing that they knew (or reasonably should have known) that the animal’s behavior would cause harm, the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and the owner failed to exercise reasonable care.

Maine Dog Bite Law

The Maine dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable when their dog injures someone who is not on the owner’s premises at the time of the injury. Any fault by the victim will not reduce their damages unless their fault exceeded the fault of the dog owner. If the incident occurred on the owner’s premises, the victim will need to rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Maryland Dog Bite Law

The Maryland dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for any injury caused by the dog while it is running at large, unless the victim was provoking the dog, committing or attempting to commit a trespass or another crime on the owner’s property, or committing or attempting to commit a crime against any person. More generally, the law provides that evidence that a dog caused an injury or death to someone else creates a rebuttable presumption that the dog owner knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. (This shifts the burden under the one-bite rule to the defendant.)

Massachusetts Dog Bite Law

The Massachusetts dog bite statute provides that a dog owner will be liable for any harm caused by the dog to someone else, unless the victim was provoking the dog or was committing a trespass or another tort. When a victim was under seven years old at the time of the incident, there is a presumption that they were not provoking the dog or committing a trespass or another tort.

Michigan Dog Bite Law

The Michigan dog bite statute provides that a dog owner will be liable for damages when the dog bites someone else who is on public property or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner. There is an exception for provoking the dog. The statute explicitly provides that the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s viciousness is irrelevant. The statute applies only to bites, so someone who suffers a non-bite injury will need to rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Minnesota Dog Bite Law

The Minnesota dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable when the dog attacks or injures someone who is acting peaceably in any place where they may lawfully be. There is an exception for provoking the dog.

Mississippi Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 3 years

There is no Mississippi dog bite statute. In its most famous dog bite case, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff can establish liability if the dog exhibited some dangerous propensity or disposition prior to the attack, the owner knew or reasonably should have known of the propensity or disposition, and the owner reasonably should have foreseen that the dog was likely to attack someone.

Missouri Dog Bite Law

The Missouri dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is strictly liable for damages suffered by someone bitten by the dog while they are on public property or lawfully on private property, including the dog owner’s property. There is an exception for provoking the dog. The statute specifically explains that the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s viciousness is irrelevant. However, if the victim was at fault for the incident to some extent, damages will be reduced by their percentage of fault. The statute applies only to bites, so someone who suffers a non-bite injury will need to rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Montana Dog Bite Law

The Montana dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for damages suffered by someone bitten by the dog who was at a public place or lawfully at a private place, including the property of the dog owner, located in an incorporated city or town. There is an exception for provoking the dog. The law specifically explains that the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness is irrelevant. For an incident that occurred outside an incorporated city or town, or for a non-bite injury, a victim will need to rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Nebraska Dog Bite Law

The Nebraska dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for damages that any person other than a trespasser may accrue because they were bitten by the dog. A dog owner also is liable to a person, firm, or corporation for damages that they may accrue if the dog kills, wounds, injures, worries, or chases a person or a domestic animal belonging to a person, firm, or corporation. There is an exception for certain uses of dogs in military or police work by governmental agencies or their employees. The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that the statute does not cover injuries caused by the playful and mischievous acts of dogs. It also does not cover non-bite injuries, for which a victim must rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Nevada Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

There is no Nevada dog bite statute. The federal court in Nevada, applying state law, has observed that dog bite claims “sound in negligence,” which involves the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. A violation of an animal control law may support a finding of negligence per se.

New Hampshire Dog Bite Law

The New Hampshire dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable if their dog causes harm to someone else or their property, unless the victim was committing a trespass or another tort at the time of the incident. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has observed that nothing in the language of this very broad statute limits its application to situations involving direct physical contact between a dog and a person.

New Jersey Dog Bite Law

The New Jersey dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for damages when the dog bites someone who is at a public place or lawfully at a private place, including the property of the dog owner. The statute specifically explains that the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness is irrelevant. For a non-bite injury, a victim must rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

New Mexico Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 3 years

There is no New Mexico dog bite statute. The New Mexico Court of Appeals has ruled that a dog owner is liable for harm caused by the dog if the owner knew or should have known that the dog was vicious or had a tendency or natural inclination to be vicious. (An exception applies if the victim knew of the propensities of the dog and wantonly excited it or voluntarily and unnecessarily put themselves in the way of the dog.) Meanwhile, a negligence claim is appropriate when the dog owner lacks knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities and ineffectively controls the dog in a situation in which it would reasonably be expected that injury could occur.

New York Dog Bite Law

The New York dog bite statute provides that a dog owner generally is strictly liable for medical costs resulting from an injury caused by a dangerous dog. Certain exceptions apply. The law defines a dangerous dog as a dog that has attacked a person or various types of animals without justification and caused physical injury or death, behaved in a manner that a reasonable person would believe posed a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death, or attacked a service dog, guide dog, or hearing dog without justification and caused physical injury or death.

Otherwise, a victim will need to bring a claim under the one-bite rule. The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that this requires showing that the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities, defined as the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of others in a given situation. The Court of Appeals has rejected the possibility of a negligence claim based on injuries caused by a dog. In another case, the Court of Appeals held that a violation of a local leash law is irrelevant because this serves only as evidence of negligence, which is not a basis for imposing liability.

North Carolina Dog Bite Law

The North Carolina dog bite statute provides that the owner of a “dangerous dog” is strictly liable for any injuries caused by the dog. A dangerous dog is defined as a dog that has inflicted a serious injury on a person without provocation, has been designated as potentially dangerous by the local government, or has been involved in dog fighting. Another law provides that a dog owner is liable for injuries caused when a dog over six months old runs at large at night while unaccompanied by the owner, a family member, or someone permitted by the owner.

If neither of these situations applies, a victim can bring a claim based on the one-bite rule if the dog had a vicious propensity, of which the owner had actual or constructive knowledge. Moreover, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has noted that not all actions arising from injuries caused by a dog need to involve the vicious propensity (one-bite) rule. The Court of Appeals explained that the owner of a domestic animal is chargeable with knowledge of the general propensities of certain animals and must exercise due care to prevent an injury from reasonably anticipated conduct.

North Dakota Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 6 years

There is no North Dakota dog bite statute. The North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that the standard of liability for injuries caused by a dog to someone on the premises of the dog owner is the same as the standard for injuries to a visitor caused by other means.

Ohio Dog Bite Law

The Ohio dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by the dog, with three exceptions. The dog owner is not liable if the victim was provoking the dog on the owner’s property, the victim was committing or attempting to commit criminal trespass or another criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor on the owner’s property, or the victim was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor against any person. The statute also specifically makes a dog owner liable to someone who was injured by the dog while they were on the owner’s property for door-to-door sales or other solicitations, regardless of whether the victim complied with any requirement to get a permit or license for that purpose.

Oklahoma Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: Yes, although not in rural areas and certain other locations
  • Key law: Oklahoma Statutes Section 4-42.1
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

The Oklahoma dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable when the dog bites or injures someone when they are at a place where they have a lawful right to be. There is an exception for provoking the dog. The law does not apply to rural areas or to cities or towns that do not have city or village U.S. mail delivery service. In those places, a victim must rely on non-statutory theories of liability.

Oregon Dog Bite Law

The Oregon dog bite statute allows a plaintiff to establish a claim for economic damages in a lawsuit based on an injury caused by a dog without proving that the dog owner could foresee that the dog would cause the injury. The statute also prevents the dog owner from asserting the defense that they could not foresee the dog causing the injury, although it does not prevent the owner from asserting that the dog was provoked or any other defense that may be available. (The history of this oddly worded law reveals that it responded to the Oregon Court of Appeals equating negligence with foreseeability in this context.) To get non-economic damages, a victim must rely on non-statutory options.

Pennsylvania Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: Yes, but only for medical costs
  • Key law: 3 Pennsylvania Statutes Section 459-502
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

The Pennsylvania dog bite statute provides that any cost to a victim for medical treatment resulting from an attacking or biting dog must be paid by the dog owner. To get compensation for other damages, such as pain and suffering, a victim must rely on non-statutory theories of liability. In this regard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that an unexcused violation of a state law that provides rules for controlling dogs is negligence per se. This means that it automatically establishes negligence by the owner. A victim still must show that the violation was a substantial factor in causing their injuries.

Rhode Island Dog Bite Law

The Rhode Island dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable when a dog injures any person while it is out of the enclosure of the dog owner. A dog owner is liable for double damages for a second incident. For injuries suffered within the enclosure of a dog owner, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ruled that the plaintiff must prove that the dog owner knew about the dog’s vicious propensities.

South Carolina Dog Bite Law

The South Carolina dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable if a person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog while the person is in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the dog owner. There are exceptions for provoking the dog and certain situations involving dogs working in a law enforcement capacity with a government agency.

South Dakota Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 3 years

There is no South Dakota dog bite statute. The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that a dog owner is liable for harm done by the dog if they know or have reason to know that the dog is abnormally dangerous, or if they are negligent in failing to prevent the harm.

Tennessee Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: Yes, under certain circumstances (but note the “residential exception”)
  • Key law: Tennessee Code Section 44-8-413
  • Statute of limitations: 1 year

The Tennessee dog bite statute provides that a dog owner must keep the dog under reasonable control and prevent it from running at large. Someone who breaches this duty is liable to someone who is injured by the dog while they are in a public place or lawfully on private property, unless an exception applies. There are exceptions for situations involving police or military dogs and trespassers on private, non-residential property of the dog’s owner, as well as situations in which the dog was protecting its owner or someone else from an attack by the victim, the dog was confined in an enclosure, or the victim provoked the dog. However, the statute requires a plaintiff to establish that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities if the incident occurred while the victim was on residential, farm, or other non-commercial property that was owned, rented, or leased by the dog’s owner, or where the dog’s owner was present by permission of the owner. (This essentially imposes the one-bite rule in these situations.)

Texas Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

There is no Texas dog bite statute. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that lawsuits for damages caused by dogs should be governed by the principles in the Restatement of Torts, which includes both the one-bite rule and general negligence. In other words, a dog owner who has reason to know that the dog has abnormally dangerous propensities is subject to liability for harm caused to others (except trespassers) even if they exercise the utmost care to prevent the dog from causing harm. Meanwhile, a possessor of a non-vicious dog may be subject to liability for their negligent handling of the dog.

Utah Dog Bite Law

The Utah dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for an injury caused by the dog, regardless of whether the dog is vicious or mischievous or whether the owner knows that the dog is vicious or mischievous. There are exceptions for certain situations involving dogs in law enforcement.

Vermont Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 3 years

There is no Vermont dog bite statute. The Vermont Supreme Court has observed that the general rule is that a dog owner is not liable for injuries caused by the dog unless the owner had reason to know that the dog was a probable source of danger. In other words, a dog owner is liable when the dog’s past behavior has been such as to require a person of reasonable prudence to foresee harm to the person or property of others.

Virginia Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 2 years

There is no Virginia dog bite statute. Virginia courts generally have ruled that a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by their dog if the plaintiff shows that the dog has vicious tendencies that are known or should be known to the owner. The Virginia Supreme Court also has explained that a dog owner has a traditional duty of exercising ordinary care to protect other people from injuries that might be inflicted by their dog.

Washington Dog Bite Law

The Washington dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable if a dog bites someone while they are at a public place or lawfully at a private place, including the property of the dog owner. There is an exception for police dogs. The statute specifically explains that the former viciousness of the dog and the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness are irrelevant. For injuries other than bites, a victim must rely on a non-statutory theory of liability.

Washington, D.C. Dog Bite Law

The Washington, D.C. dog bite statute provides that a dog owner will not be shielded from a finding of negligence due only to their lack of knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity if the dog injures someone else while it is at large. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ruled that the Washington, D.C. leash law is too general a statute to be the subject of a negligence per se jury instruction.

West Virginia Dog Bite Law

The West Virginia dog bite statute provides that a dog owner who allows the dog to run at large will be liable for any injuries caused by the dog while running at large. If the incident occurred while the dog was not running at large, a victim must rely on a non-statutory theory of liability, which could be either the one-bite rule or general negligence.

Wisconsin Dog Bite Law

The Wisconsin dog bite statute provides that a dog owner is liable for any injuries caused by the dog. A dog owner is liable for double damages when a dog bites a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement if the owner was notified or knew that the dog (without provocation) previously had bitten a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement. Comparative negligence is an available defense.

Wyoming Dog Bite Law

  • Statutory strict liability: No
  • Key law: N/A
  • Statute of limitations: 4 years

There is no Wyoming dog bite statute. The Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled that there are three distinct theories of recovery in dog bite cases. These are a theory of strict liability of an owner who keeps an animal while knowing of its dangerous propensities, a theory of negligence in the care and control of a domestic animal, and a theory of negligence based on the violation of a duty created by statute or ordinance not to allow a domestic animal to run at large.

Personal Injury Law Center Contents   

Related Areas