Summary of Dog Bite Statutes in Effect
The United States has divine law regarding dog bites. In general, the U.S. law requires that dog owners take full financial responsibility in case their dogs bite or injure a person, livestock or cause damage to other people’s property. With such, the victim may sue the dog owner who will automatically be liable for the problem caused by his or her dog. With this regard, the injured person may not necessarily be required to prove that the dog owner was negligent or not; hence such laws are referred to as “strict liability” statutes (Randolph, 2019) . However, there are some exceptions and conditions depending on the individual state statutes, as described below.
Alabama Dog Bite Statutes
The Alabama statute ( Ala. Code §§ 3-6-1–3-6-3 ) not only applies to dog bites but also dog behaviors which may result in injury. The dog’s owner is liable only if the injury happened on the owner’s property or after the dog chases the victim from the owner’s property. However, the liability is limited to expenses if the owner lacks the consent that the dog was dangerous (Randolph, 2019).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arizona Dog Bite Statutes
The Arizona statute ( Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 11-1020, 11-1025, 11-1027) may or may not apply to both dog bite and dog behaviors which may cause injuries. The statute applies to dog bites only in the case of provocation, trespassing, working military or police dogs. There is, however, a separate law that covers liability for injuries or property damage, such as when the dog was at large, with no exceptions (Randolph, 2019).
Ohio Dog Bite Statutes
The Ohio dog bites statutes ( Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.28(B) ) applies to both bite and dog’s behavior which may cause injury to the victim. The owner is liable if the dog causes provocation or trespassing on the owner’s property, and other crime except for the minor misdemeanor (Randolph, 2019).
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia dog bite statute ( D.C. Code Ann. § 8-1812 ) applies to both dog bites and their behavioral acts which may result in accidents. The statute applies only when the dog was at large (Randolph, 2019).
Washington
The Washington dog bite statutes ( Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 16.08.040 ) on the other hand applies selectively on dog bite cases. The owner is reliable if the dog bite occurs on trespassing and police dogs (Randolph, 2019).
Ways in Which Dog Owners May Escape Liability
Generally, the United States dog owners are held accountable for the damage or injuries caused by their dogs. The dog owners are, therefore, expected to take precautions in order to avoid the unnecessary costs caused by their dogs; both the dog bites and the dogs’ behaviors which may result in accidents, such as chasing at motorbikes. The dog owners’ liability is based on the theory behind strict-liability statutes which states that anyone who has a dog should be responsible for any damage it causes (Randolph, 2019). However, this theory does not always apply exclusively. There is a range of possible legal defenses that are available to the dog owners.
First, the dog owner may not be liable if the dog causes an injury to a person who by the time of injury was trespassing through the owner’s land or homestead. With such, the dog is assumed to have been executing its duties, and any damage or bite is justifiable to some extent. Another case when the dog owner may not take liability for the dog injury is when the victim provokes the dog. With such, the court may rule out that the owner is not liable for the injury because the dog caused injury in its self-defense. Again, many laws of dog owner’s liability may not apply in the case where the dog causes injury while performing its duties as a police dog, at the time the bite occurred (Randolph, 2019).
Another possible legal defense available for the dog owners is when a dog causes an accident through behavioral acts such as chasing a motorcycle or bicycle. In such a case, if it is established that the dog was acting playfully or just going about its business, the court may rule out the owner’s liability. The best example is the Supreme Court ruling on Holden ex rel. Holden v. Schwer, 394 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. 1993), where a puppy sat down in front of a recreational vehicle, causing the driver to swerve and hit a fence (Randolph, 2019). The court ruled out that the dog owner was not liable for the injury caused by the dog (Randolph, 2019).
Some states also have dog bite statutes that count the dog owners unreliable for the damage or injury that is beyond the owner’s control, such as the case when the dog caused the damage or injury while the dog roaming at large (Randolph, 2019). In such a case, if the court establishes that the injury was not as a result of the owner’s negligence, it may rule out the owner’s liability. Besides, if the court finds enough evidence that the dog bite or injury was as a result of another person’s contributing factors, then the owner may not be held accountable; meaning the person who caused the dog bite or injury is held liable.
Another incidence when the dog owners may not be liable is when the bite is as a result of the victim’s carelessness that contributes to their injury. Depending on the state, the court may recommend little or no compensation at all. In addition, if the victim was breaking the law, he or she may not receive any compensation from the dog’s owner. Finally, the dog’s owner may avoid the liability if he or she proves convincingly to the court that the victim was aware of the risk of the injury caused by the dog, but voluntarily took the risk leading to the injury.
The “One-Bite” Rule
The “one-bite rule” is a common principle that holds owner’s responsible for injuries caused by their dogs if only they knew or should have known that their dogs were vicious or dangerous (Boeschen, 2019). This does not, however, lead to a translation that, each dog owner is entitled to one “free” bite, because there are some dog’s behaviors that may earlier indicate that the dog poses risk to the other people and their property. In such a case they need to take the necessary measures before the first bite occurs (hence in such a case the owner may be denied the “free” bite chance by the court). If the owner is found to have neglected the earlier aggressive behaviors of the dog, the “one-bite” rule may not apply and may end up ordered by the court to compensate the victim for medical expenses as well as other damages.
To determine whether the court is to grant the one “free” bite to the dog owner, the court considers a number of factors (Boeschen, 2019). The first is the existence of previous bites by the dog; which may offer insight of probability of the repeated dog bite. Second is if the dog barks severely at strangers; meaning it is dangerous. Another indicator is if the dog has been threatening people or even jumping at them meaning the owner should have taken necessary action and, hence is denied the “free” bite by the court. Besides, the court also considers if the dog fights other dogs, any existence of public complaints about the dog, and the historical background of the dog such as dog breed; which may indicate the owner should have taken necessary measures to prevent the bite, and hence the one-bite rule may not apply to them (Boeschen, 2019). Finally, lack of “Beware of Dog” sign may lead to the court denying the “one-bite” rule to the owner and the owner may be required to compensate for the medication of the bite or other damage caused by the dog.
In conclusion, the U.S. strict liability dog-bite laws generally require that every dog owner take precautions of the dangers their dogs may pose to the public. Therefore, the U.S. dog owners are usually held financially responsible for the damage caused by their dogs. However, the dog-bite statutes vary from one state to another, and the laws may change from time to time. It is thus recommended that a dog-bite victim checks the current statutes before they sue the dog owner in order to have clear legal insights in the court proceedings.
References
Boeschen, C. (2019). "One-Bite" vs. Strict Liability Rules for Dog Bite Injury Cases: An overview of the two main types of owner liability for injuries caused by a dog, and the general rule by state. (Online). Retrieved from https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/one-bite-strict-liability-dog-bite.html
Randolph, J.D. (2019). Strict Liability Dog-Bite Laws. (Online). Retrieved from to http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dog-bite-statutes.html .
