Dog bite liability varies across states, and knowing how they do is key for effective case evaluation and strategy. The United States employs three main approaches: strict liability statutes, one-bite rule jurisdictions, and hybrid systems. We will go into these differences in more detail in the article.
States with Strict Liability
There are 36 states that operate under strict liability for dog bites, including Illinois, California, Florida, Michigan, and New York. This means owners are responsible regardless of the animal’s history.
A dog owner is liable when their dog attacks or injures any person who is behaving peacefully in a place where they are legally allowed to be. To show how this works, we will use the example of Illinois (510 ILCS 5/16). If a person is bitten by a dog in Chicago, there is no need to prove the owner knew about the dog’s dangerous propensities, which simplifies claims. However, it’s important to show that the person did not provoke the attack.
Illinois dog bite settlements reach $162,917 on average, while the median reaches around $35,000. This is above the national average. Interestingly, Illinois also extends the strict liability to other types of animals.
One-Bite Rule States
The one-bite rule requires the plaintiff to prove the owner knew or should have known about the dog’s dangerous propensities. This increases the burden of proof and often lowers settlements.
The one bite rule means that if the owner knows the dog has shown an intention or tendency to bite a person one day, they can be held liable. This knowledge is referred to as “scienter”. Essentially, these states give the owner the benefit of the doubt. The attorney needs to uncover prior incidents, animal control complaints, veterinary records, or witness testimony about the animal’s previous aggressive behavior.
The states that have the One Bite rule include Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Virginia, and others.
This type of liability is not limited to bites only. For example, if a dog is known for chasing cyclists, and it chases a child on a bike, causing it to fall, the rule still applies.
However, as in most states, provoking or abusing the animal, as well as trespassing mean the victim cannot recover the damages.
Hybrid Approaches
Some states have modified strict liability rules. For example, Georgia requires both proof of the dog’s vicious propensity and negligent management or leash law violations. Colorado has a different approach: it imposes strict liability only for economic damages, while the injured person has to prove they experienced pain and suffering. Main has strict liability for medical expenses, but requires proof for full damages.
In comparative fault states, there are additional rules to consider. Illinois and Texas do not allow recovery if the plaintiff is more than 50^ at fault. On the other hand, California uses pure comparative negligence, without barring recovery. The fault of the injured person can include trespassing, provocation, or poor risk assessment.
Provocation can take different forms:
- Hitting or otherwise physically harming the dog
- Rough play with the dog such as wrestling
- Touching them during rest or feeding
- Chasing or cornering them
- Staring into their eyes (which they perceive as a threat)
- Screaming or making other loud noises
- Other threatening behavior
Takeaway for Multi-State Practices
Strict liability frameworks are highly plaintiff-friendly, which lets you focus your resources on maximizing damages instead of proving liability. This often leads to higher settlements and more predictable outcomes.
In one-bite states, you need to invest more time in investigation, but this can lead to strong outcomes as you develop your case. You have to understand your jurisdiction well to know what type of evidence matters most.
If you have a multi-state practice, develop jurisdiction-specific protocols, build networks with veterinarians, animal control officers, and track your settlement data by injury type and venue.
Also, explain the differences to your clients. They may expect a different outcome based on their knowledge of another state. Your success will require combining jurisdictional knowledge with fierce advocacy and preparation.
