This annotation collects and analyzes the state and federal cases decided since 1960 in which courts have discussed or determined whether and under what circumstances strict or absolute liability may be imposed on a dog owner for injuries from a dogbite.

The cliche that a dog is allowed one bite has grown increasingly inaccurate as many jurisdictions have adopted various forms of absolute or strict liability as to dog owners, through either statutory enactment or interpretation of common law. However, despite this tendency to label a dog owner's liability as absolute or strict, the actual or constructive knowledge of the owner of the animal's viciousness or dangerous propensities frequently remains an essential element (See Am. Jur. 2d, Animals § 94).

The general theory of liability, in the absence of a statute, is expressed by the Restatement of Torts 2d at § 509, where it is stated that an owner of a domestic animal that the owner knows or has reason to know has abnormally dangerous propensities is subject to liability for harm done by the animal, even though the owner has exercised the utmost care to prevent the animal from doing the harm.

Some courts in jurisdictions without statutorily imposed liability for dog owners have specifically refused to adopt rules of absolute liability. However, some courts using a common-law analysis of dogbite liability have imposed what the court termed absolute or strict liability after a finding that the dog owner has knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities.

In many jurisdictions the requirement of scienter on the part of a dog owner regarding the dog's dangerousness or viciousness before the imposition of liability for dogbite injuries has been expressly abrogated by statute, and one court has judicially adopted such an approach, applying a form of strict liability to dog owners for dogbite injuries through a common-law analysis without requiring proof of the owner's knowledge of the dog's viciousness.

Some statutes imposing strict liability on dog owners contain a provision regarding the confinement or restraint of dogs, either affirmatively imposing such a duty on owners or excluding owners whose dogs are confined from strict liability imposed otherwise. Still other jurisdictions have statutes imposing strict liability on dog owners for dogbite injuries without reference to the knowledge of the owner of the dog's propensities and under conditions other than or in addition to the confinement or restraint of the dog. Finally, a Louisiana statute presumes fault in the nature of strict liability on dog owners in the case of dogbite injuries subject only to a showing that the harm was caused by some other fault.

Courts applying absolute or strict liability to a dog owner have nevertheless recognized forms of negligence defenses such as contributory negligence and assumption of the risk in determining liability under common-law principles as well as under relevant statutes, although there is contrary authority that assumption of the risk is not available as a defense under a dogbite statute. However, dog owners have not always been successful in establishing such defenses even when it is available.

Additional defense theories have developed to exculpate dog owners from statutorily imposed absolute or strict liability. Thus, where a dogbite victim has provoked the dog so as to cause the attack, courts have held that the dog owner is not liable. However, in some cases, particularly where the bite victim is a child, courts have concluded that the victim's behavior towards the dog did not constitute provocation. A defense based on the status of the bite victim as a trespasser has also been recognized to avoid statutory strict liability for dogbites, but there have been situations in which courts have concluded that a trespasser defense was not established. Other defenses to a dog owner's strict liability may be available under specific statutes, such as a provision allowing a dog owner to avoid liability by the use of a warning sign (§ 14).

§ 14. Posted warning sign

In the following cases courts recognized that under proper circumstances a dog owner might assert a defense of posting a warning sign to the strict liability imposed by statute on dog owners for injuries caused by a dogbite, but required that such a sign be easily readable for the dog owner to avoid liability.

In an action for injuries to a woman bitten by a hardware store owner's dog while in the store, the court, in Carroll v Moxley (1970, Fla) held that the dog owner was not entitled to a summary judgment under a statute providing that ... no liability will lie for injury occurring after notice is given by the posting of a "Bad Dog" sign. Although a gate beside a counter in the store contained signs reading "Beware of Dog" and "Keep Out," the court held that there were unresolved factual issues regarding whether the sign was in a prominent place and easily readable so as to give actual notice of the risk of bite to the victim.

In Flick v Malino (1979, Fla), an action involving dogbite injuries to a 3-year-old girl, the court held that a dog owner did not establish an absolute defense as a matter of law to the statutorily imposed strict liability for dog owners by posting a sign reading "WARNING BAD DOG," notwithstanding a statutory provision protecting dog owners who post an easily readable sign including the words "BAD DOG," since it could not be said that a sign is easily readable as to a 3-year-old child.

See Stickney v Belcher Yacht, Inc. (1983, Fla) in which the court held that a marina customer bitten by a watchdog while talking to a security guard at the marina was not entitled to recover damages under a statute imposing liability on dog owners for injuries due to bites regardless of the owner's knowledge of the dog's viciousness but excusing the owner from liability if the owner displays an easily readable sign including the words "Bad Dog," where the owner had displayed a sign bearing the words "Beware of Dogs," and where the victim admitted that he had seen and understood the sign.

Dog owners who posted "bad dog" sign in compliance with statute were not exempted from liability to woman and her husband when woman was bitten by dog, where woman and husband were business invitees, and owners told them to ignore sign because dog was secured. Noble v. Yorke, (Fla. 1986).

... my son was out walking the dog in our driveway and someone made a grab for my son and tried to drag him off. The 12 week old pup bit the attacker and my son was able to run back to safety with Sasha right behind him.