Understanding The One Bite Law For Dog Owners

Dog bite laws vary from state to state in the US, but they can be broadly divided into two categories: strict liability rules and one-bite rules. In strict liability states, dog owners are always responsible for a bite that occurs on public property or when the victim is lawfully on private property. In one-bite states, dog owners are usually only held liable for a bite if there was reason to suspect the dog had a propensity to attack. This is often referred to as the one-bite rule.

The 'one bite rule' and its variations

The "one bite rule" is a legal doctrine that determines whether the owner of a domestic animal can be held legally liable for injuries caused by that animal. The rule applies to any domestic animal, including dogs, cats, or any other type of domestic pet. The rule states that the owner, harborer, or keeper of the animal shall be held legally liable for damages caused by the animal if it can be shown that:

• The animal had a propensity to do something harmful that was unusual for its class (such as biting people, scratching them, or knocking them down).
• The owner, harborer, or keeper of the animal was aware of this propensity or dangerous propensity prior to the incident in question.
• The animal's propensity to act harmfully caused damage to a person or property in the incident in question.

The "one bite rule" is often contrasted with "strict liability" laws, which hold the owner of a dog or other domestic animal liable for injuries caused by their pet, regardless of whether the owner knew or should have known the animal was dangerous.

While the name of the rule implies that a dog is allowed one free bite before its owner can be held liable, this is not always the case. If an owner knows that their dog's breed is dangerous, or if the particular dog might be prone to biting because of its general character or some other factor, they could still face liability for the dog's first bite.

The focus of the "one bite rule" is on whether the owner knew or should have known that the dog might bite and whether they took reasonable precautions based on that knowledge. For example, if a relatively aggressive dog recently underwent surgery and the owner did not warn a house guest not to pet the dog, the owner might be held liable if the house guest is subsequently bitten.

The "one bite rule" is relevant in the first instance that a canine attacks a human being. In such a case, the extent to which the state having jurisdiction adheres to the English common law pertaining to injuries inflicted by domestic animals becomes the paramount legal issue. This common law shielded the owner of a domestic animal from civil liability for the first victim of each of their animals, giving rise to the "one bite rule," "first bite rule," or "first bite free" rule.

The one-bite rule underlies civil and criminal actions in modern America and is applicable in every state and the District of Columbia. However, the majority of American states have passed "dog bite statutes" that modify the one-bite rule in specific circumstances. These statutes might provide for full compensation, or payment of just medical bills, or payment of medical bills and other economic losses. Some do not apply during the day, or if the dog owner posted a "bad dog" sign, or if the victim had provoked the dog previously.

In states that follow the "one bite rule," proving liability under this rule may differ. Generally speaking, a homeowner or dog owner is liable for the injuries their animal causes on or off their property if the injured party can show that:

• The domestic animal has tendencies to act in a harmful or dangerous way.
• The owner or caretaker, which could be a dog walker or kennel company, knew or should have known about the animal's dangerous tendencies.
• The animal's dangerous tendencies caused damage to a person or property.

It is important to note that the "one bite rule" can apply to other types of harm besides biting, such as a dog knocking over a child. Additionally, an injured person may not be able to recover damages if the defendant can show that the victim was trespassing or provoking the animal.

Dog owner's liability

Dog owners' liability is a complex issue that varies from state to state in the US. The two most common rules are "strict liability" and the "one-bite rule".

Strict Liability

Many states have enacted "dog-bite" statutes that create a form of "strict liability" for dog bites. This means that the dog owner is held liable if their dog bites someone, regardless of whether the owner did anything wrong or knew their dog was dangerous. In these states, it is irrelevant whether the dog had never shown any signs of aggressiveness. The dog owner is generally liable for a bite that occurs on public property or when the victim is lawfully on private property.

However, there are usually exceptions to strict liability laws, such as provocation, trespassing, or if the dog was being used by law enforcement. Some states also allow municipalities to enact breed-specific legislation, defining certain breeds as dangerous dogs.

One-Bite Rule

The one-bite rule is a common-law principle that requires the plaintiff to prove that the dog owner either knew or was negligent in not knowing that their dog had a propensity to injure people. This rule is often applied in lawsuits involving bites from domesticated animals, such as dogs. If the plaintiff can prove this, and if the bite occurred within the owner's enclosure, the owner may be held liable for the dog bite.

The one-bite rule does not necessarily allow a dog one free bite. If an owner knows their dog's breed is dangerous, or if the dog might be prone to biting due to its character or other factors, they could be held liable for the dog's first bite. The focus is on whether the owner knew or should have known about their dog's tendencies and took reasonable precautions.

Other Considerations

In addition to strict liability and the one-bite rule, other factors can influence dog owners' liability, such as negligence and local dangerous dog laws. Negligence occurs when the dog owner or caretaker did not take proper action to decrease the likelihood of a dog bite incident. Dangerous dog laws impose penalties and duties on dog owners whose dogs meet the definition of "dangerous" or "vicious" under state law. These laws may require owners to keep their dogs on a leash, purchase liability insurance, or even order the destruction of the dog.

Strict liability laws

In the US, approximately 36 states have strict liability laws for dog bites. This means that a dog owner is responsible for injury to a person (or sometimes that person's property) whether or not the owner knew the dog had a "vicious propensity". The dog owner has to pay for the dog bite victim's injury even if the dog never seemed dangerous or vicious in the past. This is different from a "dangerous dog" law, which imposes penalties and duties on dog owners whose dogs meet the definition of "dangerous" or "vicious" under state law.

Some states have what is called modified strict liability, which means that there is another factor that must be met before strict liability is imposed. This occurs in Georgia (strict liability for dogs "at liberty", or off-leash), North Carolina (dogs running at large in the nighttime), Tennessee (running at large/not under control), and West Virginia (running at large).

There are often exceptions to strict liability laws, with provocation being the most common. Provocation is typically defined as inducing or inciting someone to do something, usually by words. In the case of dogs, it means that the person injured by the dog aggravated, teased, or abused it, which caused it to attack. Trespassing is another common exception; some states explicitly exclude trespassers in their list of exceptions, though this may be implied by the language of the law. For example, if the statute says it covers injury to a person when they are "lawfully" in a place, such language would presumably exclude an unlawful trespasser from a damages award.

The one-bite rule, on the other hand, is a common law rule that requires the plaintiff to first bear the burden of proof in pleading and proving that the dog owner either knew or was negligent in not knowing that the dog had a propensity to injure people. If the plaintiff successfully proves this and if the dog bite occurred within the dog owner's enclosure, the dog owner may be held liable for the dog bite. Many states have either rejected or modified the one-bite rule either by statute or case law.

Proving owner knowledge

The "one bite" rule is a theory of liability that applies to dog bite cases. It states that the owner is liable if they knew or should have known that their dog might act in a dangerous or harmful way. This means that after the first incident, the owner is aware of and responsible for controlling their animal and its vicious tendencies.

• Prior biting incidents: While a previous bite can be strong evidence, the details of the incident are important. For example, if a dog bit someone who was trespassing or provoking the dog, it may not be considered valid proof of the dog's dangerousness.
• Display of threatening behaviour: If a dog frequently growls, snaps, or acts aggressively towards strangers, this can indicate that the owner should have been aware of its potential for harm.
• Playful behaviour that can cause harm: Even playful behaviours, such as a large dog jumping on people, can put people at risk. Owners can be held liable if they should have known that such behaviour could be dangerous.
• Breed-specific behaviours: Certain breeds have distinct traits and tendencies. For example, pit bulls were originally bred for bull-baiting and may exhibit aggressive tendencies if not properly socialised.
• Owner's statements and warnings: If an owner has made statements or warnings about their dog's behaviour, this can be used as evidence that they were aware of its potential for harm.
• Neighbour complaints: If neighbours have complained about the dog's aggressive behaviour, this can indicate that the owner was aware or should have been aware of its dangerousness.
• Leash law violations: If your town has a leash law and the dog that bit you was running loose, this can be used as proof of the owner's negligence.

It is important to note that the specific requirements for proving owner knowledge may vary depending on the state and its laws. Consulting with a personal injury lawyer or a dog bite lawyer can help you understand the specific requirements in your jurisdiction.

Exceptions to the rule

The "one-bite rule" is a common-law principle that applies when a state's civil code does not address dog bites. It holds that a dog owner is liable for an injury caused by their dog only if they knew or should have known that the dog was likely to cause that kind of injury.

However, there are exceptions to the rule. Firstly, the one-bite rule does not necessarily allow a dog "one free bite". If a dog owner knows that their dog's breed is dangerous, or if the dog might be prone to biting due to its general character or other factors, they could be held liable for the dog's first bite. For example, if a relatively aggressive dog recently had surgery, and the owner did not warn a house guest who then got bitten, the owner could be held liable.

Secondly, the one-bite rule does not apply in states with "strict liability" dog-bite laws, which hold owners liable for dog bites regardless of whether they knew or could have prevented the attack. In these states, the injured person does not have to prove that the owner was careless or knew the animal was dangerous. However, strict liability statutes vary by state, and some only apply in certain situations, such as when the bite occurs on public property or to particular claimants like government employees.

Thirdly, the one-bite rule does not apply if the injured person was trespassing or provoking the dog, in which case the dog owner is not liable for the injury.

Finally, the one-bite rule might apply in certain situations even in a state with a strict liability statute. For example, if a dog injures someone by knocking them off their bicycle, state courts might fall back on common-law rules like the one-bite rule to decide liability.

Frequently asked questions