Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Name:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Zip Code:

Your Question:

Editor: Jeffrey Harlan Penneys, Esq.
Profession: Philadelphia Personal Injury Attorney

Category: Legal

Owner Liability for Animal Bites
If an animal bites you, the first thing to determine is: who is the owner of the animal? In most states, the owner of an animal can be held liable for the injuries it inflicts, provided that the owner knew (or had reason to know) that the animal had "dangerous propensities." In other words, if an animal owner knows that his or her animal is dangerous and could cause injury to a person, the animal owner can be held liable for the animal's harmful actions.

Determining whether an owner knew of an animal's "dangerous propensities" can be difficult. The first question that often arises in making this determination is whether the owner needs to know of the particular animal's potential for harm, or whether the owner only needs to know that type of animal is potentially harmful. For example, when a person has a pit bull as a pet, does that mean the owner knows or should know the pet will be harmful, just because, in general, pit bulls can be harmful?

Most courts have ruled that an animal owner is responsible for knowing both the particular and general potential for his animal to cause harm. Thus, even if a pit bull owner had never seen his pet act viciously, he might still be held responsible for an attack by the dog because of the propensity of pit bulls in general to be aggressive animals. In such a situation, the owner is said to have "constructive notice" of the animal's vicious propensitites.

Additionally, sometimes an animal's vicious propensity may be inferred from the circumstances of the attack. For instance, if a trained guarddog attacks someone, a judge or court could infer that the owner knew or should have known the dog would attack someone who entered the area the dog was guarding.

Some states impose what is known as "strict liability" upon animal owners whose animals bite or attack others. Under the theory of strict liability, an owner is legally responsible (liable) for an animal bite, regardless of whether the owner did anything wrong with respect to protecting others from attack. Under this theory, even if the owner had no reason to know that his or her animal was dangerous, if the animal bit someone, the owner would still be liable.

Potential Defenses in Animal Bite Cases
There are instances in which an owner of a vicious animal might not be held liable for an attack by the animal. For example, if the animal owner adequately warned other people that the animal was dangerous, and took measures to keep the animal away from people, a person who ignored the owner's warnings and was injured by the animal might not successfully sue the owner. In legal terms, the injured person's behavior is known as "contributory negligence" or "assumption of the risk." An injured person is contributorily negligent when he or she fails to exercise the degree of care for his or her safety that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances. For example, if a person climbs over a fence and is bitten by a dog on the other side, a jury could decide not to hold the dog owner liable if they believed that a normal person would not have climbed over the wall in the first place.

An animal owner might also escape liability if the injured person "assumed the risk" of an attack by the animal. If the owner can show that the person bitten by his or her animal had actual knowledge of the risk of injury from the animal, but voluntarily exposed him or herself to that risk anyway, a court can bar the injured person from recovering damages. For example, if the owner puts up a "Beware of Dog" sign, and a person ignores this sign and gets bitten by the dog, the owner might not be responsible for that person's injury. If the animal owner is claiming either "assumption of risk" or "contributory negligence," however, the owner has the burden of convincing the jury of these arguments.

An animal owner can also argue that the injured person provoked the animal, and this may be a way for the owner to avoid liability. For example, if a person makes a threatening gesture toward an animal, and the animal attacks, this could negate the owner's liability.

The relationship between the owner and the injured person can also affect the owner's liability. For example, if the owner invites someone over to his/her property, and the invited person (known legally as an "invitee") is injured, the owner can be held responsible if he/she did not warn the invitee of the potential danger of the dog. On the other hand, if someone is trespassing on the owner's property, the owner will probably not be liable for animal bites sustained by the trespasser (unless the injury is intentionally caused by the owner).

Other Potential Responsible Parties
Animal owners are not the only people who can be held responsible for animal bites. Here are a few common scenarios where someone other than an animal owner could be held liable for an animal bite:

Animal Keepers: Anyone who is responsible for the care or custody of an animal may be considered an owner or keeper and can be held responsible for an animal bite. Examples include kennels, a pound, or an animal sitter.

Parents of Minors: Even if a person under 18 years of age owns the animal at issue, in many states, an injured person can bring a legal claim against the minor's parents, even if the parents had no involvement with the animal.

Property Owners: A property owner can be liable for injuries caused by an animal the property owner has allowed onto his or her property.

Landlords: If an apartment landlord knew (or should have known) that a tenant owned a dangerous animal, the landlord may also be liable for animal bite injuries.