Dog Bites and Attacks Leading to Legal Claims under Personal Injury
1. Legal Theories for Dog Bite Claims
A. Strict Liability
Under strict liability laws, a dog owner is automatically liable for a dog bite or attack, regardless of the owner's knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities.
Key Concept: The injured party does not need to prove negligence or prior knowledge. Liability arises from ownership alone.
Example Statute: Many U.S. states (like California, Florida) follow strict liability laws. For instance, California Civil Code § 3342 states:
“The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place…”
Case Law:
Priebe v. Nelson, 39 Cal.4th 1112 (2006)
The California Supreme Court held that strict liability applies only to dog bites, not other injuries caused by dogs (e.g., a dog tripping someone without biting).
B. One-Bite Rule (Common Law Negligence-Based Liability)
In states without strict liability statutes, the "one-bite rule" may apply. Under this rule, a dog owner is only liable if they knew or should have known the dog had a dangerous propensity, typically shown by a prior bite or aggressive behavior.
Key Concept: Requires showing knowledge and negligence.
Case Law:
Sprague v. Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd., 104 Wash. App. 221 (2001)
The Washington court held that a dog owner could be liable if they knew the dog had dangerous tendencies, even if it had never bitten before, based on aggressive behavior.
Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006)
The court found the government agency liable when it failed to enforce animal control laws despite knowledge of a vicious dog that later attacked a child.
C. Negligence
Even if strict liability does not apply, a victim may bring a negligence claim by proving the dog owner failed to act with reasonable care in controlling or restraining the animal.
Key Concept: Plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Case Law:
Bradley v. Kopp, 663 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
The court upheld negligence liability where the owner let the dog roam free in violation of leash laws, leading to an attack.
D. Negligence Per Se
If a dog owner violates an animal control or leash law and the violation results in an injury, the owner may be held liable under negligence per se (i.e., automatic negligence based on statutory violation).
Case Law:
Huss v. Gayden, 991 So. 2d 986 (Miss. 2008)
The court applied negligence per se where the dog was off-leash in violation of local ordinance.
2. Defenses to Dog Bite Liability
A. Provocation
If the injured party provoked the dog, the owner's liability may be reduced or eliminated.
B. Trespassing
If the injured person was unlawfully on the property, strict liability may not apply in many jurisdictions.
Example: In California, Civil Code § 3342 exempts dog owners from liability if the bite occurred while the victim was unlawfully on the property.
C. Assumption of Risk
This defense may apply if the injured party voluntarily accepted the risk of being around a dangerous dog (e.g., a vet or dog trainer).
3. Damages Recoverable
Victims may recover:
Medical expenses
Lost wages
Pain and suffering
Scarring and disfigurement
Emotional distress
Punitive damages (in egregious cases)
4. Children and Dog Bites
Children are often victims of dog attacks. Courts may lower the standard of care for children, making it easier for them to recover.
Case Law:
Boyer v. Seal, 553 So. 2d 827 (La. 1989)
A 2-year-old was bitten; the court held the owner strictly liable under Louisiana’s Civil Code despite claims of provocation, given the child’s age.
5. Landlord Liability
In some cases, landlords may be held liable for dog bites caused by tenants’ dogs if they had knowledge of the danger and control over the premises.
Case Law:
Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 44 Cal. App. 3d 504 (1975)
A landlord was found liable where they knew of a tenant’s dangerous dog and failed to act.
Conclusion
Dog bite claims are nuanced and depend heavily on jurisdictional law, facts of the case, and type of legal theory pursued (strict liability, negligence, etc.). While some states favor victims with strict liability statutes, others rely on traditional negligence and the "one-bite rule." Courts have consistently balanced public safety with fairness to dog owners, especially when provocation or trespassing is involved.
RELATED Blog
0 comments