23 Strict liability13 Mixed — strict in some situations15 "One-bite" rule / negligence
| State | Status | What the law says |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Mixed — strict in some situations | Alabama makes owners liable for bites where the victim had a right to be, but owners may reduce damages by proving they had no reason to think the dog was dangerous. |
| Alaska | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Alaska has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Arizona | Strict liability | Arizona has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Arkansas | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Arkansas has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| California | Strict liability | California has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for a bite even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Colorado | Mixed — strict in some situations | Colorado’s strict liability applies only when a bite causes serious bodily injury or death; other bites follow ordinary negligence rules. |
| Connecticut | Strict liability | Connecticut has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Delaware | Strict liability | Delaware has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| District of Columbia | "One-bite" rule / negligence | The District repealed its dog-bite statute in 2017, so liability follows the common law: the injured person generally has to show the owner was negligent or knew the dog was dangerous. |
| Florida | Strict liability | Florida has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for a bite even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Georgia | Mixed — strict in some situations | Georgia holds owners liable for dangerous dogs that are allowed to roam or are not kept under the restraint a local leash law requires. |
| Hawaii | Strict liability | Hawaii has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Idaho | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Idaho has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Illinois | Strict liability | Illinois has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Indiana | Strict liability | Indiana has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for a bite even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Iowa | Strict liability | Iowa has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Kansas | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Kansas has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Kentucky | Strict liability | Kentucky has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Louisiana | Mixed — strict in some situations | Louisiana holds dog owners liable for injuries the owner could have prevented, unless the victim provoked the dog. |
| Maine | Mixed — strict in some situations | Maine holds owners liable for injuries caused when the dog is off the owner’s premises. |
| Maryland | Mixed — strict in some situations | Maryland presumes the owner knew the dog was dangerous; the owner can rebut that presumption. Owners are strictly liable when the dog was running at large. |
| Massachusetts | Strict liability | Massachusetts has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Michigan | Strict liability | Michigan has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for a bite even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Minnesota | Strict liability | Minnesota has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Mississippi | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Mississippi has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Missouri | Strict liability | Missouri has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Montana | Mixed — strict in some situations | Montana’s strict liability covers bites in incorporated cities and towns only; elsewhere negligence rules apply. |
| Nebraska | Strict liability | Nebraska has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Nevada | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Nevada has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| New Hampshire | Strict liability | New Hampshire has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| New Jersey | Strict liability | New Jersey has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for a bite even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| New Mexico | "One-bite" rule / negligence | New Mexico has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| New York | "One-bite" rule / negligence | New York has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| North Carolina | Mixed — strict in some situations | North Carolina’s statute only covers dogs over 6 months running at large at night; otherwise owners are liable mainly if they knew the dog was dangerous. |
| North Dakota | "One-bite" rule / negligence | North Dakota has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Ohio | Strict liability | Ohio has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Oklahoma | Strict liability | Oklahoma has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Oregon | Mixed — strict in some situations | Oregon holds owners strictly liable for economic damages (such as medical bills) caused by their dog; other damages follow negligence rules. |
| Pennsylvania | Mixed — strict in some situations | Pennsylvania makes owners pay the full medical costs of a bite; other damages generally require showing the owner knew of the danger. |
| Rhode Island | Mixed — strict in some situations | Rhode Island holds owners liable for injuries to people on the highway or outside the owner’s enclosure. |
| South Carolina | Strict liability | South Carolina has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| South Dakota | "One-bite" rule / negligence | South Dakota has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Tennessee | Mixed — strict in some situations | Tennessee holds owners strictly liable for dogs running at large; on the owner’s property, the victim must show negligence. |
| Texas | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Texas has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Utah | Strict liability | Utah has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Vermont | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Vermont has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Virginia | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Virginia has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |
| Washington | Strict liability | Washington has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for a bite even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| West Virginia | Mixed — strict in some situations | West Virginia holds owners liable for damage done by dogs running at large. |
| Wisconsin | Strict liability | Wisconsin has a strict liability statute: the owner is liable for injuries the dog causes even if the dog had never shown aggression before. Common defences are provocation and trespassing. |
| Wyoming | "One-bite" rule / negligence | Wyoming has no dog-bite strict liability statute. Under the “one-bite” rule and negligence law, an injured person usually has to show the owner knew — or should have known — the dog was dangerous, or was careless in controlling it. |