Dog attacks can cause severe psychological trauma and emotional distress for victims. An injury case against the dog’s owner can offer some relief and justice to the victim. It also provides financial compensation that will help pay for the victim’s medical bills and treatment. The liability laws in each state will determine whether or not you are able to bring a claim against the pet owner following a dog bite injury. One common example is “one-bite rule”.
What does a One-Bite Rule mean?
Two main types of laws apply to dog bite injuries:
- the strict liability rule and the one-bite law. The strict liability dog bite state makes the pet owner financially responsible for any dog bite injury, even if there is no proof of negligence. These states make pet owners liable for any injuries or property damage that their pets cause, regardless of whether they were able to foresee it.
The one-bite rule states that an animal that bites another person’s skin will only be liable if it was known that the dog might behave in a dangerous or harmful manner. This legal theory is based on the notion that an animal can only get one bite before it’s owner can be held responsible for its vicious tendencies. The pet owner may not have been able to predict that the dog would bite again if it had not bitten anyone or acted violently.
What is the One-Bite Rule?
A one-bite rule is not just about a dog biting. It can also be a warning sign that the dog may be vicious. A dog’s actions and behaviors can be a reason for the pet owner to take action to prevent an attack. Any evidence that the pet owner knew or should know through reasonable diligence that the dog was prone to viciousness may fall under the one bite rule.
- In the past, the dog had bit, growled at, barked or injured anyone. Or, the dog had killed or injured a domestic animal.
- Animal Control Center of the city had previously identified the dog as “dangerous” or “nuisance” in response to an attack on a dog or other reported incidents.
- According to the law, the breed of the dog is what makes it dangerous.
The pet owner is responsible for any subsequent bites or attacks that result from a vicious dog biting someone if there were reasonable grounds to suspect this. You may be able use the theory that negligence can be applied even if you are unable to prove dog bite injuries based on strict liability. Negligence is when a reasonable and prudent pet owners would have done something different to prevent the dog bit injury. The pet owner could be held responsible if he or she fails to exercise reasonable care.
Summarized from an article by Rose, Klein & Marias Injury Lawyers.
