Dog Bite Laws by State: Liability and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 28, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 23, 2026. · 37 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Dog bite liability rules vary sharply by state. 25 states hold owners strictly liable for a bite regardless of the dog's history, 14 follow some version of the one-bite rule that requires the victim to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous, and 11 states split liability depending on where the bite happened, how severe the injury was, or what kind of damages the victim is seeking. The tables below show every state's rule and the primary statute or governing case law behind it, drawn directly from RecordingLaw's state-by-state dog bite law guides.
Dog Bite Laws by State
Dog bite laws vary significantly across the United States. Some states hold dog owners strictly liable for any injuries their dogs cause, some follow the "one-bite rule" that protects owners who had no reason to believe their dog was dangerous, and others split liability depending on the circumstances of the bite. Click any state below for its full breakdown, including statute of limitations, defenses, and dangerous-dog rules.
Strict Liability States
In these states, dog owners are generally liable for bite injuries regardless of whether they knew their dog was dangerous, subject to standard defenses like provocation or trespassing:
Northeast states
The table below covers 4 states in the Northeast.
| State | Rule | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Strict liability | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 | Only defenses are trespassing and teasing/tormenting the dog |
| Massachusetts | Strict liability | M.G.L. c. 140, § 155 | |
| New Hampshire | Strict liability | RSA 466:19 | |
| New Jersey | Strict liability | N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 |
Midwest states
The table below covers 8 states in the Midwest.
| State | Rule | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Strict liability | 510 ILCS 5/16 | |
| Iowa | Strict liability | Iowa Code § 351.28 | |
| Michigan | Strict liability | MCL 287.351 | |
| Minnesota | Strict liability | Minn. Stat. § 347.22 | Comparative fault is not a valid defense |
| Missouri | Strict liability | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 | |
| Nebraska | Strict liability | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 | |
| Ohio | Strict liability | ORC § 955.28(B) | |
| Wisconsin | Strict liability | Wis. Stat. § 174.02 | Damages double for a second bite if the owner knew of the dog's first unprovoked bite |
Southern states
The table below covers 7 states in the South.
| State | Rule | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delaware | Strict liability | 16 Del. C. § 3053F | |
| Florida | Strict liability | Fla. Stat. § 767.04 | A posted "Bad Dog" sign can defeat liability for victims age 6+ |
| Kentucky | Strict liability | KRS § 258.235(4) | |
| Louisiana | Strict liability | La. Civ. Code art. 2321 | Victim must show the dog posed an unreasonable risk the owner could have prevented |
| Maryland | Strict liability | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 | A bite creates a rebuttable presumption the owner knew the dog was dangerous; liability while the dog is running at large is strict, subject to statutory exceptions for trespass, a criminal offense against a person, or teasing/tormenting/provoking the dog |
| Oklahoma | Strict liability | 4 O.S. § 42.1 | Does not apply in rural areas without U.S. mail delivery service |
| South Carolina | Strict liability | S.C. Code § 47-3-110 |
Western states
The table below covers 6 states in the West.
| State | Rule | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Strict liability | A.R.S. § 11-1025 | 1-year SOL for strict-liability claims; provocation is the primary defense |
| California | Strict liability | Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 | |
| Hawaii | Strict liability | HRS § 663-9 | Negligence-based with no scienter requirement; HI courts call this short of true strict liability (Hubbell v. Iseke) |
| Idaho | Strict liability | Idaho Code § 25-2810(11) | Idaho replaced its one-bite rule with strict liability in 2016 |
| Utah | Strict liability | Utah Code § 18-1-1 | |
| Washington | Strict liability | RCW 16.08.040 |
One-Bite Rule States
In these states, victims generally must prove the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities, or that the owner was negligent:
| State | Rule | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska | One-bite rule | Common law (Hale v. O'Neill, 1971) | |
| Arkansas | One-bite rule | Common law (no statewide statute) | Some counties, e.g. Benton County, enforce local strict-liability ordinances |
| Georgia | One-bite rule | O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7 | Also liable if the dog was loose in violation of a local leash ordinance |
| Indiana | One-bite rule | IC 15-20-1-3 | Strict liability applies only to bites on mail carriers/government workers on official duty; all other victims must prove negligence |
| Kansas | One-bite rule | Common law | No Kansas statute covers human dog-bite injuries |
| Mississippi | One-bite rule | Common law (Poy v. Grayson, 1973) | |
| Nevada | One-bite rule | Common law negligence | |
| New Mexico | One-bite rule | Common law (scienter rule, UJI 13-506) | Victims may also sue for ordinary negligence without proving prior knowledge |
| North Dakota | One-bite rule | Common law (Sendelbach v. Grad, 1976) | Victim must prove both the owner's knowledge and negligence |
| South Dakota | One-bite rule | Common law (Sybesma v. Sybesma) | Sybesma, a livestock-trampling case, recites the knowledge-based strict-liability rule (Restatement § 509) but holds that a victim suing in ordinary negligence need not prove the owner knew the particular animal was dangerous |
| Texas | One-bite rule | Common law (Marshall v. Ranne, 1974) | |
| Vermont | One-bite rule | 20 V.S.A. ch. 193 | A pending 2025-2026 bill (H.183) would add strict liability; not yet law |
| Virginia | One-bite rule | Common law | Virginia is a pure contributory negligence state; any victim fault bars recovery entirely |
| Wyoming | One-bite rule | Common law (Borns v. Voss, 2003) |
Mixed or Split-Liability States
In these states, which standard applies depends on the circumstances of the bite, most often where it happened, how serious the injury was, or what kind of damages the victim is seeking:
| State | Rule | Key Statute | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Mixed / split | Ala. Code §§ 3-6-1, 3-1-3 | Strict liability (owner can limit damages by proving no prior knowledge) on the owner's property; one-bite rule off the property |
| Colorado | Mixed / split | C.R.S. 13-21-124 | Strict liability (economic damages only) for serious bodily injury or death; negligence required for lesser injuries or pain-and-suffering |
| Maine | Mixed / split | 7 M.R.S. § 3961 | Strict liability off the owner's premises; negligence required for bites on the owner's own property |
| Montana | Mixed / split | Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715 | Strict liability inside incorporated cities/towns; negligence standard in unincorporated/rural areas |
| New York | Mixed / split | Agric. & Markets Law § 123 | Strict liability for medical costs only, and only for dogs formally designated dangerous; all other damages require proof of negligence or knowledge. In April 2025, Flanders v. Goodfellow opened ordinary negligence claims for domestic-animal injuries statewide, overruling Bard v. Jahnke's long-standing bar. |
| North Carolina | Mixed / split | N.C.G.S. § 67-4.4 | Strict liability only for dogs officially designated dangerous; ordinary dogs follow the one-bite rule |
| Oregon | Mixed / split | ORS 31.360 | Strict liability for economic damages (medical bills, lost wages) only; pain-and-suffering requires proof of negligence or knowledge |
| Pennsylvania | Mixed / split | 3 P.S. § 459-502 | Strict liability for medical costs only; full damages require proof of negligence or knowledge |
| Rhode Island | Mixed / split | R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-13-16 | Strict liability outside the dog's enclosure; one-bite rule for bites inside the owner's enclosed property |
| Tennessee | Mixed / split | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 | Strict liability in public or on someone else's property; one-bite rule for bites on the owner's own residential property |
| West Virginia | Mixed / split | W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 | Strict liability when the dog is running at large; one-bite rule for bites on the owner's property |
Understanding Dog Bite Laws
What Is Strict Liability?
In strict liability states, a dog owner is legally responsible for injuries caused by their dog regardless of whether they knew the dog was dangerous. The victim generally needs to prove only that the defendant owned the dog, the dog bit them, and they were legally allowed to be where the bite occurred.
What Is the One-Bite Rule?
The one-bite rule (also called the "first bite free" rule) means owners may not be liable for a first bite if they had no reason to believe their dog was dangerous. Once an owner knows their dog has bitten before or shown aggressive behavior, they can be held liable for future incidents. Several one-bite states, including Texas and Wyoming, also let victims recover through an ordinary negligence claim even without proof of the dog's history.
What Are Mixed or Split-Liability Rules?
In mixed-liability states, the standard that applies depends on specific facts, not just whether the owner knew the dog was dangerous. Common splits include:
- By location: Rhode Island and West Virginia apply strict liability when the dog is off the owner's property (or running at large) and the one-bite rule when the bite happens on the owner's own property. Alabama applies the opposite split (strict liability on the owner's property, one-bite rule off it). Maine follows the same off-property/on-property direction as Rhode Island and West Virginia (strict liability off the owner's premises, negligence required on it).
- By injury severity: Colorado applies strict liability only when the bite causes serious bodily injury or death; lesser injuries require proving negligence.
- By type of damages: New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania apply strict liability to medical costs or other economic damages only. Recovering pain-and-suffering damages in these states requires proving the owner was negligent or knew the dog was dangerous.
- By the dog's legal status: New York and North Carolina apply strict liability only to dogs that have already been formally designated "dangerous" through a legal process; bites from an ordinary dog still follow the one-bite rule.
Common Defenses
- Provocation: The victim teased, tormented, or abused the dog
- Trespassing: The victim was illegally on the owner's property
- Comparative or Contributory Negligence: The victim's own actions contributed to the injury. In pure contributory negligence states like Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia, even minor fault by the victim can bar recovery entirely
- Assumption of Risk: The victim knowingly accepted the risk (e.g., veterinarians, groomers, dog handlers)
If the owner claims you provoked the dog, were trespassing, or share the fault, have a personal injury lawyer in your state review how the bite happened in a free consultation (attorney advertising).
What to Do After a Dog Bite
- Seek medical attention immediately, even for minor wounds
- Document the incident with photos of injuries and the location
- Get owner information including name, address, and insurance details
- Report the bite to local animal control
- Consult an attorney to understand your legal options and your state's filing deadline
Estimate a dog bite settlement
If you were bitten, our free dog bite settlement calculator gives a rough payout range based on medical bills, bite severity, and your state liability rule. It is an estimate only, not a prediction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue if a dog bites me?
Yes, in most cases. Your ability to recover damages depends on your state's liability rule. In strict liability states, you can typically sue without proving the owner knew the dog was dangerous. In one-bite states, you generally need to prove the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous tendencies, or that the owner was negligent. In mixed states, which standard applies can depend on where the bite happened, how serious the injury was, or what damages you're seeking.
What damages can I recover?
Victims may recover medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and scarring or disfigurement damages. Some states also allow punitive damages for particularly egregious cases. In mixed-liability states like New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, strict liability may only cover medical costs or other economic damages, with pain-and-suffering damages requiring proof of negligence.
Does homeowner's insurance cover dog bites?
Most homeowner's and renter's insurance policies include liability coverage for dog bites. However, some insurers exclude certain breeds or dogs with a bite history. Always check your policy.
What is the statute of limitations for dog bite claims?
Deadlines vary significantly by state, from as little as 1 year (Kentucky, Tennessee) to as long as 6 years (Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota). Most states allow 2 to 3 years to file a personal injury lawsuit. Consult an attorney promptly to make sure you do not miss your state's deadline.
Are certain breeds more dangerous?
While some studies suggest certain breeds are involved in more bite incidents, any dog can bite regardless of breed. Many states have moved away from breed-specific legislation, focusing instead on individual dog behavior and owner responsibility. Several states (including Connecticut, Nevada, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) now prohibit local breed-specific bans outright.
What does it mean if my state has a "mixed" or "split" dog bite law?
It means two different liability standards apply depending on the facts of your case. Common splits include where the bite happened (on vs. off the owner's property), how severe the injury was, or what type of damages you're claiming (medical bills vs. pain and suffering). New York and Pennsylvania, for example, impose strict liability for medical costs only, while Rhode Island and West Virginia switch between strict liability and the one-bite rule depending on whether the dog was inside or outside its enclosure.
Updates
Corrected the court-decision citations in the one-bite rule table: removed a Nevada case that did not concern dog-bite liability and clarified what the South Dakota decision in Sybesma v. Sybesma actually held about negligence claims.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Fixed a contradiction in the mixed-liability explanation (Maine's on/off-property split runs the same direction as Rhode Island and West Virginia, not opposite -- only Alabama is opposite), replaced a Pennsylvania citation that pointed to an unrelated department webpage with the actual statute text, and added a note to the New York table row about the April 2025 Flanders v. Goodfellow ruling that opened ordinary negligence claims.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the Maryland row: at-large dog-bite liability under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901(c) is strict subject to three statutory exceptions (trespass, a criminal offense against a person, or teasing/tormenting/provoking the dog), not 'absolute.'
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 11 (Counties), Chapter 7 (INTERGOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS), Article 6.1 (Handling of Animals)
§ 11-1025Liability for dog bites; owner information; military and police work; definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. The owner of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness. B. A person who owns or is responsible for the care of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall provide the owner's contact information to the person who suffered the dog bite. C. The breed of a dog may not be considered in findings of facts or conclusions of law entered by a court, administrative law judge, hearing officer, arbitrator or other legal decision-maker regarding whether a dog is aggressive or vicious or has created liability. D. This section and section 11-1020 do not allow the bringing of an action for damages against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking act or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Weekly v. City of Mesa (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1994, 181 Ariz. 159)“…1 on his claim for strict liability pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-1025 (the dog bite statute) for injuries pla…”
- Spirlong v. Browne (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2014, 236 Ariz. 146)“…definition of “owner” applies to both A.R.S. § 11-1020 and A.R.S. § 11-1025. See A.R.S. § 11-1001 and A.R.S. § 11-1…”
- HEAD v. MESA (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2026)“…in a reckless disregard of his rights or was unlawful. See A.R.S. § 11-1025(D). And he did not adequately address t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
California Civil Code
§ 3342In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) 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, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner. (b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity. (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):California courts have applied section 3342 strict liability subject to primary assumption of risk. Nelson v. Hall (1985) held assumption of the risk is a complete defense to a veterinary assistant bitten during treatment, and Priebe v. Nelson (2006) extended that veterinarian's rule to bar a kennel worker's section 3342 claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Nelson v. Hall (California Court of Appeal 1985, 165 Cal. App. 3d 709)✓A veterinary assistant was bitten in the face while helping sedate a dog for surgery; the court held assumption of the risk is a complete defense to a section 3342 claim, so the owner was not strictly liable for a bite during treatment.
- Priebe v. Nelson (California Supreme Court 2006, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553)✓A commercial kennel worker was mauled while walking a boarded pit bull; the California Supreme Court extended the veterinarian's rule and held primary assumption of risk barred her strict liability claim under section 3342, leaving her common law claims for retrial.
- Gomes v. Byrne (California Supreme Court 1959, 51 Cal. 2d 418)✓A salesman entered a yard after the dog barked and followed him along the fence for 50 feet, and was bitten; the court held assumption of risk remains available under section 3342 and that the evidence supported the finding he accepted an obvious risk.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 22 (Agriculture. Domestic Animals), Chapter 435
§ 22-357Damage by dogs to person or property.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Law enforcement officer” means: Each officer, employee or other person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of (A) the Division of State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; (B) the Office of the State Capitol Police; (C) a municipal police department; and (D) the Department of Correction; (2) “Property” includes, but is not limited to, a companion animal, as defined in section 22-351a; (3) “The amount of such damage”, with respect to a companion animal, includes expenses of veterinary care, the fair monetary value of the companion animal, including all training expenses for a service animal owned by a person with a disability and burial expenses for the companion animal; (4) “Service animal” has the same meaning as provided in section 22-345; and (5) “Disability” has the same meaning as provided in section 22-345.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 116 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Falby v. Zarembski (1992) held that Section 22-357 strict liability reaches only an owner or a keeper who harbors or possesses the dog, so an employer that merely allowed a worker's dog on site was not a keeper. Tryon v. Town of North Branford (2000) held that governmental immunity bars a Section 22-357 claim against municipal defendants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Falby v. Zarembski (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1992, 221 Conn. 14)✓A mail carrier was attacked by an employee's pit bull at a remodeling job site; the court held the employer's knowledge of and acquiescence in the dog's presence, without feeding, housing or taking control of it, did not make it a keeper strictly liable under section 22-357.
- Tryon v. Town of North Branford (Connecticut Appellate Court 2000, 58 Conn. App. 702)✓A firefighter was bitten by a volunteer firefighter's dalmatian at a parade; the court held governmental immunity bars section 22-357 strict liability claims because neither that statute nor 52-557n abrogates it, affirming summary judgment there but reviving her negligence claim.
- Squeglia v. Squeglia (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1995, 234 Conn. 259)✓A four year old bitten by his father's dog at the family home sued his father under section 22-357; the court held the doctrine of parental immunity bars an unemancipated minor's strict liability action against a parent under that statute, and affirmed summary judgment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Delaware Code, Title 16 (Health and Safety), Chapter 030f (ANIMAL WELFARE)
§ 3053FLiability of dog owner for damages.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The owner of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by such dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the body or property of a person who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Riad v. Brandywine Valley SPCA, Inc. (2024) held Section 3053F imposes strict liability and carries no exception for animal welfare organizations, since owner covers anyone who owns, keeps, harbors, or is custodian of a dog. Sanchez v. Hendrix (2024) applied it to hold a landlord who was not the owner is not strictly liable.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Riad v. Brandywine Valley SPCA, Inc. (Supreme Court of Delaware 2024)✓A shelter dog bit a would-be adopter in the lobby while a staff member held its leash; the court held 16 Del. C. § 3053F is unambiguous and carries no exception for animal welfare organizations, and reversed summary judgment for the shelter.
- Sanchez v. Hendrix (Superior Court of Delaware 2024)✓A pit bull pushed through an unlatched storm door and bit a mail carrier; the court held strict liability under 16 Del. C. § 3053F did not reach the grandmother who owned the house but not the dog, and denied her summary judgment on landlord knowledge.
- Billings v. Abbey Walk (Superior Court of Delaware 2023)✓A woman walking her dog near an apartment complex was attacked by a tenant's unleashed pit bull; the court held that the strict liability imposed by 16 Del. C. § 3053F falls on the dog's owner, so the landlord and manager could be reached only through negligence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Delaware Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Florida Statutes
§ 767.04Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons bitten.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners’ knowledge of such viciousness. However, any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person’s negligence contributed to the biting incident. A person is lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning of this act when the person is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the person is on such property upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 40 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney (1984) held section 767.04 reaches only the dog owner, not a non-owner keeper, and Carroll v. Moxley (1970) held the Bad Dog sign defense turns on whether the sign was prominent and easily readable. Huie v. Wipperfurth (1994) noted the 1993 amendment made the remedy cumulative with common law.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Carroll v. Moxley (Supreme Court of Florida 1970, 241 So. 2d 681)✓A woman was bitten by a dog in her mother's store, which had a warning sign; the court held section 767.04 supersedes the common law only in the situations it covers, and that whether a Bad Dog sign is prominent and readable is a fact question, so summary judgment was error.
- Belcher Yacht, Inc. v. Stickney (Supreme Court of Florida 1984, 450 So. 2d 1111)✓A boat owner was bitten by a marina's guard dog behind a posted Beware of Dog sign; the court held section 767.04 is the exclusive remedy against the dog's owner, barring the common law claim, but that the statute reaches only owners, so the guard could still be sued.
- Donner v. Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 358 So. 2d 21)✓A guest petted a nervous Doberman and was bitten on the lip, and the jury got an assumption-of-risk charge; the Supreme Court held a dog owner sued under section 767.04 has only the defenses the statute itself sets out, then provocation or a posted Bad Dog sign.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Idaho Code
§ 25-2810dangerous and at-risk dogs. For purposes of this section:In forcecited in 2 of our articles
25-2810. dangerous and at-risk dogs. For purposes of this section: (1) A person commits the crime of maintaining a dangerous dog or at-risk dog if the person owns, possesses, or harbors a dangerous dog or at-risk dog as described in subsection (4)(a) or (b) of this section unless otherwise in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Stephen Boswell v. Amber Dawn Steele (Idaho Court of Appeals 2017)“…e jury on this 2 In 2016, the legislature enacted Idaho Code § 25-2810, providing a statutory claim in dog-bit…”
- State v. Wenk (Idaho Court of Appeals 2023, 533 P.3d 1016)“…CONCLUSION Idaho Code Section 25-2810 does not require a prior court order de…”
- Boswell v. Steele (Idaho Supreme Court 2018)“…f liability that we discuss in this opinion when it adopted Idaho Code section 25-2810 in 2016. 2016 Idaho Sess. L. ch. 285, §…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Iowa Code, Chapter 351: DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
§ 351.28Liability for damages.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
The owner of a dog shall be liable to an injured party for all damages done by the dog, when the dog is caught in the action of worrying, maiming, or killing a domestic animal, or the dog is attacking or attempting to bite a person, except when the party damaged is doing an unlawful act, directly contributing to the injury. This section does not apply to damage done by a dog affected with hydrophobia unless the owner of the dog had reasonable grounds to know that the dog was afflicted with hydrophobia and by reasonable effort might have prevented the injury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts read section 351.28 as imposing strict liability on a dog's legal owner. Collins v. Kenealy (1992) held that leaving the dog with a groomer does not shift that liability and that the statute's only defense is the injured party doing an unlawful act. Fouts Ex Rel. Jensen v. Mason (1999) held owner now means legal owner.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fouts Ex Rel. Jensen v. Mason (Supreme Court of Iowa 1999, 592 N.W.2d 33)✓A toddler was bitten in a backyard shared by a landlord and her tenant, who owned the dog; the court held that the 1994 repeal of the statutory definition narrowed "owner" in Section 351.28 to the legal owner, so the landlord who fed and walked the dog was not strictly liable.
- Collins v. Kenealy (Supreme Court of Iowa 1992, 492 N.W.2d 679)✓A dog groomer bitten while chasing an escaped dog sued its owners; the court held a temporary custodian is not a person who "keeps or harbors" a dog, so the groomer was not a statutory owner and the legal owners remained strictly liable under Section 351.28.
- Hagen v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. (Supreme Court of Iowa 1995, 526 N.W.2d 531)“…y, 492 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Iowa 1992) (interpreting Iowa Code § 351.28 (1989)). Although section 351.28 provi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 258: ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION
§ 258.235Authority to kill or seize dog -- Return by court to owner of vicious dog -- Liability for damage -- Proceeding by person attacked by dog -- Disposition of dog after seizure -- Powers of animal control officer -- Vicious dog not to run at largeIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person. (2) Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill any dog trespassing on that owner's property and observed in the act of pursuing or wounding his livestock. (3) Any dog determined to be vicious by a court and allowed to be returned to an owner shall be confined in a locked enclosure at least seven (7) feet high or a locked kennel run with a secured top. The dog may leave the enclosure only to visit the veterinarian or to be turned in to an animal shelter. The dog shall be muzzled if leaving the enclosure for either of these purposes. (4) Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage. (5) (a) Any person who has been attacked by a dog, or anyone acting on behalf of that person, may make a complaint before the district court, charging the owner or keeper of the dog with harboring a vicious dog.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kentucky courts read KRS 258.235(4) as strict liability. Latasha Maupin v. Roland Tankersley held a dog owner strictly liable for attack injuries, with comparative fault reducing damages; Benningfield ex rel. Benningfield v. Zinsmeister held a landlord can be a statutory owner only for attacks on or about the premises.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Benningfield ex rel. Benningfield v. Zinsmeister (Kentucky Supreme Court 2012, 367 S.W.3d 561)✓A rottweiler kept at a rented house escaped and mauled an eight-year-old boy across the street; the court held a landlord can be a statutory owner under KRS 258.235(4) but only for attacks on or immediately adjacent to the premises, so these landlords were not liable.
- May v. Holzknecht Ex Rel. Holzknecht (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2010, 320 S.W.3d 123)✓A dog kept at an in-home daycare mauled a toddler; the court affirmed summary judgment against the keepers under KRS 258.235(4), since the child was too young to be comparatively negligent and no third party or fortuitous circumstance excused them.
- Pamela Hanna v. Daniel Shea (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2025)“…all Circuit Court granted summary judgment concluding that KRS 258.235 does not extend liability to the circum…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Louisiana Civil Code
§ 2321Damage caused by animals; livestockIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. The owner of an animal, including livestock, is answerable for the damage caused by the animal. However, the owner is answerable for the damage only upon a showing that the owner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that his animal's behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that the owner failed to exercise such reasonable care. B. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation of the dog. C. The owner of livestock is liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the livestock that escape an enclosure and the owner could have prevented by an exercise of reasonable care. The owner of livestock is not liable for damages for injuries to person or property for livestock that escape an enclosure due to any of the following: (1) A fortuitous event. (2) No fault of the owner. (3) Third person provocation of the livestock. D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In Pepper v. Triplet (2004) the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a plaintiff suing a dog owner under art. 2321 must show the dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm to establish the owner could have prevented the injury. Granger v. Guillory (2002) applied the article's res ipsa loquitur clause to horses that escaped onto a highway.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pepper v. Triplet (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2004, 864 So. 2d 181)✓A neighbor unlatched a gate and entered a fenced backyard to get his son's football and was bitten; the court held that strict liability under Article 2321 still requires proof the dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and this secured dog posed none.
- Granger v. Guillory (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2002, 819 So. 2d 477)✓Two horses got out of a fenced property at night and a passing car struck them; applying the res ipsa loquitur clause of Article 2321, the court upheld a finding that the owner was negligent because he offered no plausible account of how they escaped.
- Rozell v. LA. ANIMAL BREEDERS CO-OP., INC. (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1986, 486 So. 2d 968)“…bull's owners is absolute rather than merely strict. [2] La.Civ.Code art. 2321 provides the owner of an animal is liab…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 3-1901In forcecited in 2 of our articles
§3–1901. (a) (1) In an action against an owner of a dog for damages for personal injury or death caused by the dog, evidence that the dog caused the personal injury or death creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. (2) Notwithstanding any other law or rule, in a jury trial, the judge may not rule as a matter of law that the presumption has been rebutted before the jury returns a verdict. (b) In an action against a person other than an owner of a dog for damages for personal injury or death caused by the dog, the common law of liability relating to attacks by dogs against humans that existed on April 1, 2012, is retained as to the person without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Santana v. State (Court of Appeals of Maryland 2026)“…lysis for altering the common law), superseded by statute, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901, as recognized in 75-80 Props., L.L.C.…”
- Diltz v. Ashton (District Court, D. Maryland 2022)“…rson without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog.” Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901(b). Under the common law of liability…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 287.351Person bitten by dog; liability of ownerIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. (2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner's property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or if the person is on the owner's property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 287.351 as imposing liability absent provocation. Hill v. Sacka (2003) held the comparative fault allocation statutes do not apply to a dog bite action because liability is absolute absent provocation, and Feister v. Bosack (1993) stated that statutory dog bite liability attaches only to owners.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Taylor v. Mobley (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 279 Mich. App. 309)“…liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten...." MCL 287.351(1) (emphasis supplied). At no time du…”
- Hill v. Sacka (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 256 Mich. App. 443)✓A two-year-old was mauled by a chained German shepherd and the jury found his father 75 percent at fault; the court held MCL 287.351 imposes absolute liability absent provocation and that the comparative-fault statutes do not reduce the award.
- Carolyn Sue Kelsey v. Nita Lint (Michigan Court of Appeals 2017)✓A woman returned the day after a garage sale to ask about an item and was bitten on the leg as she got out of her car; the court held a jury could find she was a licensee, so ruling her a trespasser outside MCL 287.351 as a matter of law was error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 347: DOGS AND CATS
§ 347.22DAMAGES, OWNER LIABLEIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term "owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily liable. The term "dog" includes both male and female of the canine species.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Minnesota courts treat Minn. Stat. 347.22 as imposing absolute liability on the dog owner. Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia (1981) held that liability cannot be reduced by the victim's ordinary negligence, and Engquist v. Loyas (2011) held provocation is narrower than contributory negligence and requires the victim's knowledge of the risk.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Seim Ex Rel. Seim v. Garavalia (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1981, 306 N.W.2d 806)✓A girl bitten in the face while petting a tied dog had her award halved for her own negligence; the court held section 347.22 imposes absolute liability, so a plaintiff's ordinary negligence cannot reduce recovery, and directed that the full verdict be restored.
- Hyatt v. Anoka Police Department (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2005, 691 N.W.2d 824)✓A police dog released during a husband's arrest bit his wife instead; the court held section 347.22's plain language reaches police dogs and the cities that own them, but that the reasonable force statute prevails where the two conflict, so her claim may be limited.
- Engquist v. Loyas (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2011, 803 N.W.2d 400)✓A 9-year-old was bitten after calling a dog into a dark crawl space and reaching to hug it; the court held liability under section 347.22 is absolute subject to provocation, which requires voluntary conduct exposing the victim to a known risk, and ordered a new trial.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XVII (AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS), Chapter 273
§ 273.036Owner liable, when — fine, amount.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or possessor's knowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors of dogs shall also be strictly liable for any damage to property or livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that the damaged party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by the owner or possessor of the biting dog shall be reduced by the same percentage that the damaged party's fault contributed to the incident. The provisions of this section shall not apply to dogs killing or maiming sheep or other domestic animals under section 273.020. 2. Any person who is held liable under the provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. The remedies provided by this section are in addition to and cumulative with any other remedy provided by statute or common law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2011
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Miles Ex Rel. Miles v. Rich (Missouri Court of Appeals 2011, 347 S.W.3d 477)“…v. Moudy, 488 S.W.2d 917, 921-22 (Mo.App.1972). Section 273.036 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2009), now makes the owner or…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Missouri Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability in the Show-Me State
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 54: LIVESTOCK
§ 54-601Dogs; personal property; owner liable for damages; exceptionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Dogs are hereby declared to be personal property for all intents and purposes, and, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the owner or owners of any dog or dogs shall be liable for any and all damages that may accrue (a) to any person, other than a trespasser, by reason of having been bitten by any such dog or dogs and (b) to any person, firm, or corporation by reason of such dog or dogs killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing any person or persons or any sheep or other domestic animals belonging to such person, firm, or corporation. Such damage may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of the amount claimed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Nebraska courts read section 54-601 as a strict liability statute with limits. Guzman v. Barth (1996) held it removed the common law scienter requirement for nontrespassers but did not abrogate a trespasser's common law claim, and Underhill v. Hobelman (2009) held the added word injuring did not extend it to a dog's playful acts.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ruisi (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2000, 9 Neb. Ct. App. 435)✓A guest was mauled by one of the defendant's guard dogs and he was convicted under an Omaha ordinance for harboring a dangerous dog; the court did not apply section 54-601 itself but looked to its strict liability case law as instructive that prior knowledge is not required.
- Guzman v. Barth (Nebraska Supreme Court 1996, 250 Neb. 763)✓A stranded motorist walking to a house for help was bitten by a dog that came through an open gate; the court held section 54-601 does not abrogate the common law action, so even a trespasser may sue by proving the owner knew of the dog's vicious propensities.
- Underhill v. Hobelman (Nebraska Supreme Court 2009, 279 Neb. 30)✓A dog ran into a woman's knee and knocked her down; the court held that adding the word "injuring" to section 54-601 in 1992 did not extend strict liability to a dog's playful or mischievous acts, and it affirmed partial summary judgment for the owner.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE XLV ANIMALS, CHAPTER 466 DOGS AND CATS
§ 466:19Liability of Owner or Keeper.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Any person to whom or to whose property, including sheep, lambs, fowl, or other domestic creatures, damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by such person shall be entitled to recover damages from the person who owns, keeps, or possesses the dog, unless the damage was occasioned to a person who was engaged in the commission of a trespass or other tort. A parent or guardian shall be liable under this section if the owner or keeper of the dog is a minor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Bohan v. Ritzo (1996) held RSA 466:19 imposes strict liability for a dog's vicious or mischievous acts and does not require a bite or direct physical contact, and held the comparative fault statute applies to such claims. Blais v. Town of Goffstown (1979) held the statute does not reach a municipality's reasonable use of police dogs.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bohan v. Ritzo (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1996, 141 N.H. 210)✓A cyclist stuck out his leg and fell when a small dog ran at him from a driveway, though the dog never bit or touched him; the court held RSA 466:19 requires no bite or physical contact and upheld the strict-liability verdict for the dog's mischievous conduct.
- Blais v. Town of Goffstown (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1979, 119 N.H. 613)✓A woman was bitten twice by a police dog after an officer gave the attack command during her husband's arrest; the court held RSA 466:19 and :20 do not apply to suits against municipalities for injuries from their reasonable use of police dogs.
- Allgeyer v. Lincoln (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1984, 125 N.H. 503)✓A ten-year-old was bitten entering the dog owners' home and was found twenty percent negligent; the court applied the double-damages statute to both the RSA 466:19 and negligence counts, leaving open whether contributory negligence bars a claim brought only under 466:19.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
New Jersey Statutes (Unannotated)
§ 4:19-16Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dogIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner when he is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 31 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New Jersey courts apply N.J.S.A. 4:19-16 as absolute liability. DeRobertis v. Randazzo (1983) held a plaintiff must prove ownership, a bite, and that he was in a public place or lawfully on the owner's property; Pingaro v. Rossi (1999) held the victim's negligence should not have gone to the jury absent evidence she incited the dog.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- DeRobertis v. Randazzo (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1983, 94 N.J. 144)✓A five-year-old was bitten by a chained German shepherd at an auto body shop his father did towing work for; the court held section 4:19-16 requires proof the child was lawfully in the area where the dog was kept, a jury question, and ordered a new trial.
- Jannuzzelli v. Wilkens (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1978, 158 N.J. Super. 36)✓A three-year-old was hurt on the face and neck by a chained dog; the jury found she was scratched rather than bitten, and the court held section 4:19-16 therefore did not apply, though the owner's admitted knowledge that the dog jumped and scratched made him liable at common law.
- Mascola v. Mascola (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1979, 168 N.J. Super. 122)✓A six-year-old was bitten by her uncle's Doberman while her parents kept it during his trip; strictly construing the statute, the court held a temporary keeper is not an owner under section 4:19-16, so the strict liability count failed and only the common-law claim remained.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Jersey Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Ohio Revised Code
§ 955.28Dog may be killed for certain acts - owner liable for damagesIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 of the Revised Code, a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person or a dog that chases, threatens, harasses,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Also relied on in: Ohio Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Ohio Supreme Court: Mobile-Home-Park Owner Not a 'Harborer' for a Tenant's Dog Bite (2026)
Utah Code, Title 18: Dogs
§ 18-1-1Liability and damages for dog injury -- Exceptions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) (a) Except as provided in Subsections (2) and (3), an individual who owns or keeps a dog is liable for an injury caused by the dog, regardless of whether: (i) the dog is vicious or mischievous; or (ii) the owner knows the dog is vicious or mischievous. (b) Damages for an injury described in Subsection (1)(a) shall be determined in accordance with Section 78B-5-818. (2) Neither the state nor any county, city, or town in the state nor any peace officer employed by the state, a county, a city, or a town is liable in damages for an injury caused by a dog, if: (a) the dog and the dog's law enforcement handler are trained to assist in law enforcement and are certified according to the standards adopted in Title 53, Chapter 6, Part 4, Law Enforcement Canine Team Certification Act; (b) the governmental agency has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of dogs in official law enforcement duties; (c) the actions of the dog's handler do not violate the agency's written policy; and (d) the injury occurs while the dog is reasonably and carefully being used in the apprehension, arrest, or location of a suspected offender or in maintaining or controlling the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Utah courts read section 18-1-1 as strict liability confined to dogs. Neztsosie v. Meyer (1994) held that a keeper must assume custody, management, and control, so a relative who only checked that the owners' dog had food and water while they traveled was not a keeper. Jackson v. Mateus (2003) declined to extend it to cat owners.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Neztsosie v. Meyer (Utah Supreme Court 1994, 250 Utah Adv. Rep. 10)✓A boy riding his bicycle was attacked by a dog whose vacationing owners had asked a relative to check its food and water; the court held that relative was not a "keeper" under Section 18-1-1, because keeping requires assuming custody, management, and control.
- Waters v. Powell (Court of Appeals of Utah 2010, 655 Utah Adv. Rep. 24)“…Utah’s strict liability dog bite statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 18-1-1 (2007); Jackson v. Mateus,…”
- Jackson v. Mateus (Utah Supreme Court 2003, 473 Utah Adv. Rep. 3)✓A woman was bitten by a roaming house cat she had mistaken for one of her own and asked the court to extend Utah's dog-bite statute to cats; the court held Section 18-1-1 applies only to dogs under its plain language and left any extension to the legislature.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Utah Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Revised Code of Washington
§ 16.08.040Dog bites—Liability.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. (2) This section does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog, as defined in RCW 4.24.410.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts read RCW 16.08.040 as strict liability in derogation of the common law, strictly construed. Sligar v. Odell (2010) held a plaintiff must prove she was lawfully on the owner’s property, and consent is not presumed where the property is fenced. Beeler v. Hickman (1988) held "owner" is not limited to the dog’s purchaser.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wright v. Engum (Washington Supreme Court 1994, 124 Wash. 2d 343)“…liable regardless of notice. Specifically, Plaintiff cites RCW 16.08.040 which provides that the dog owner "shal…”
- Sligar v. Odell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2010, 156 Wash. App. 720)✓A neighbor stumbled against a six-foot chain link fence and the dog bit her finger where it poked through; the court held consent cannot be presumed when the owner's property is fenced, so she was not lawfully there and RCW 16.08.040 strict liability did not apply.
- Beeler v. Hickman (Court of Appeals of Washington 1988, 50 Wash. App. 746)✓Grandparents kept their granddaughter's beagle for three years and it bit a two-year-old neighbor in the face; the court held owner under RCW 16.08.040 is not limited to the purchaser and left to a jury whether their years of possession made them owners.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 174: Dogs
§ 174.02Owner’s liability for damage caused by dog; penalties; court order to kill a dog.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Liability for injury. (a) Without notice. Subject to s. 895.045 and except as provided in s. 895.57 (4), the owner of a dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic animal or property. (b) After notice. Subject to s. 895.045 and except as provided in s. 895.57 (4), the owner of a dog is liable for 2 times the full amount of damages caused by the dog biting 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 had previously, without provocation, bitten a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement. (2) Penalties imposed on owner of dog causing damage. (a) Without notice. The owner of a dog shall forfeit not less than $50 nor more than $2,500 if the dog injures or causes injury to a person, domestic animal, property, deer, game birds or the nests or eggs of game birds. (b) After notice.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance (2004) held Wisconsin courts may use the six traditional public policy factors to preclude liability under 174.02 even where the statute's strict liability is otherwise established. Pawlowski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. (2009) held a homeowner who harbored a dog was a statutory owner.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2004, 272 Wis. 2d 46)✓A three-year-old was injured by a dog after her mother walked uninvited into a friend's empty house; the court held public policy factors may limit liability under Section 174.02 and barred the claim, since keeping the dog indoors was all the owners could be required to do.
- Smaxwell v. Bayard (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2004, 274 Wis. 2d 278)✓A three-year-old was mauled by a tenant's wolf hybrids on her grandmother's land; the court limited landowner and landlord negligence liability to owners or keepers, reasoning broader liability would conflict with the statute's limit of liability to owners, keepers and harborers.
- Pawlowski v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2009, 322 Wis. 2d 21)✓A homeowner let an acquaintance and his two dogs live with her rent free, and one dog bit a woman walking past after its owner let it out unleashed; the court held she harbored the dog and so was a statutory owner, liable despite the legal owner's momentary control.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 51-2-7Liability of owner or keeper of vicious or dangerous animal for injuries caused by animal.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured.…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 77 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Swanson v. Tackling (2016) held a dog owner entitled to summary judgment where no prior incident showed the dog's propensity to bite, and Tyner v. Matta-Troncoso (2019) held OCGA 51-2-7 applies only to a person who owns or keeps the animal, not to an out-of-possession landlord.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hamilton v. Walker (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1998, 235 Ga. App. 635)✓A four-year-old entered a fenced yard and was bitten by a dog that had growled and barked at strangers but never bitten anyone; the court affirmed summary judgment for the owners, holding menacing behavior alone does not show the propensity the statute requires.
- Supan v. Griffin (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1999, 238 Ga. App. 404)✓A nine-year-old was bitten by the owner's Rottweiler and Chow mix; the court affirmed denial of summary judgment, holding the owner's earlier remark to a neighbor to do whatever was needed to keep the dogs from attacking raised a jury question on knowledge.
- Rowlette v. Paul (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1995, 219 Ga. App. 597)✓A property appraiser in a rain hood was bitten in a backyard by a beagle whose one prior bite came a year earlier after a relative startled the sleeping dog by banging on the porch; the court affirmed summary judgment, finding no notice of a propensity to attack a stranger.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 7: AGRICULTURE AND ANIMALS, Part 9: ANIMAL WELFARE, Chapter 729: DAMAGE BY ANIMALS
§ 3961Reimbursement for damage done by animalsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. Injuries and damages by animal. When an animal damages a person or that person's property due to negligence of the animal's owner or keeper, the owner or keeper of that animal is liable in a civil action to the person injured for the amount of damage done if the damage was not occasioned through the fault of the person injured. 2. Injuries by dog. Notwithstanding subsection 1, when a dog injures a person who is not on the owner's or keeper's premises at the time of the injury, the owner or keeper of the dog is liable in a civil action to the person injured for the amount of the damages. Any fault on the part of the person injured may not reduce the damages recovered for physical injury to that person unless the court determines that the fault of the person injured exceeded the fault of the dog's keeper or owner.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Maine courts have construed the owner or keeper language of section 3961. Morgan v. Marquis (2012) held that a dog's keeper may not recover damages under section 3961(1), and Parrish v. Wright (2003) applied the care, custody and control test to hold that absent homeowners were not keepers of their adult daughter's dog.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Parrish v. Wright (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2003, 828 A.2d 778)✓An adult daughter's dog ran off her parents' island property and bit a neighbor walking his dog while the parents were living in Georgia; the court held the parents were not keepers under section 3961 because they lacked care, custody and control, and affirmed summary judgment.
- Morgan v. Marquis (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2012, 50 A.3d 1)✓A pet sitter was bitten in the face by the dog she had agreed to care for; the court held a dog's keeper may not recover under section 3961(1), but that whether she had become the keeper by the moment of the bite was a fact question, so summary judgment was vacated.
- Lewis v. Penney (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1993, 632 A.2d 439)“…987, the legislature replaced section 3651 with the similar 7 M.R.S.A. § 3961. The new section provides that: When…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
West Virginia Code
§ 19-20-13Dog running at large; liability of owner.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
Any owner or keeper of any dog who permits such dog to run at large shall be liable for any damages inflicted upon the person or property of another by such dog while so running at large.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: West Virginia Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
New York Agriculture and Markets Law
§ 123Dangerous dogsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Dangerous dogs. 1. Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may make a complaint of an attack or threatened attack upon a person, companion animal as defined in section three hundred fifty of this chapter, farm animal as defined in such section three hundred fifty, or a domestic animal as defined in subdivision seven of section one hundred eight of this article to a dog control officer or police officer of the appropriate municipality. Such officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his or her right to commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this section and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself or herself. 2. Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may, and any dog control officer or police officer as provided in subdivision one of this section shall, make a complaint under oath or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or threatened attack.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Also relied on in: Dog Laws, New York Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 44, Chapter 8, Part 4: Running at Large (Fences and Confinement)
§ 44-8-413Civil liability for injury caused by dogsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) (1) The owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable control at all times, and to keep that dog from running at large. A person who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in or on the private property of another. (2) The owner may be held liable regardless of whether the dog has shown any dangerous propensities or whether the dog's owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities. (b) Subsection (a) shall not be construed to impose liability upon the owner of the dog if: (1) The dog is a police or military dog, the injury occurred during the course of the dog's official duties and the person injured was a party to, a participant in or suspect
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library
Also relied on in: Tennessee Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Insurance Information Institute - Spotlight on: Dog Bite Liability(iii.org)
- Arizona - A.R.S. § 11-1025(azleg.gov).gov
- California - Cal. Civ. Code § 3342(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Connecticut - Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Delaware - 16 Del. C. § 3053F(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- Florida - Fla. Stat. § 767.04(leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Hawaii - HRS § 663-9(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Idaho - Idaho Code § 25-2810(11)(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Illinois - 510 ILCS 5/16(ilga.gov).gov
- Iowa - Iowa Code § 351.28(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Kentucky - KRS § 258.235(4)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- Louisiana - La. Civ. Code art. 2321(legis.la.gov).gov
- Maryland - Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Massachusetts - M.G.L. c. 140, § 155(malegislature.gov).gov
- Michigan - MCL 287.351(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Minnesota - Minn. Stat. § 347.22(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Missouri - Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Nebraska - Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- New Hampshire - RSA 466:19(gc.nh.gov).gov
- New Jersey - N.J.S.A. 4:19-16(njcourts.gov).gov
- Ohio - ORC § 955.28(B)(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Oklahoma - 4 O.S. § 42.1(oklegislature.gov).gov
- South Carolina - S.C. Code § 47-3-110(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- Utah - Utah Code § 18-1-1(le.utah.gov).gov
- Washington - RCW 16.08.040(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Wisconsin - Wis. Stat. § 174.02(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Indiana - IC 15-20-1-3(iga.in.gov).gov
- Vermont - 20 V.S.A. ch. 193(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Alabama - Ala. Code §§ 3-6-1, 3-1-3(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
- Colorado - C.R.S. 13-21-124(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Maine - 7 M.R.S. § 3961(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Montana - Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715(leg.mt.gov).gov
- New York - Agric. & Markets Law § 123(nysenate.gov).gov
- North Carolina - N.C.G.S. § 67-4.4(ncleg.gov).gov
- Oregon - ORS 31.360(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Pennsylvania - 3 P.S. § 459-502 (Dog Bites; Detention and Isolation of Dogs)(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Rhode Island - R.I. Gen. Laws § 4-13-16(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- West Virginia - W. Va. Code § 19-20-13(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.