The owner of any dog is liable for the injuries and damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully on the private property of the dog's owner when he or she is performing any duty imposed by law or postal regulations, or when he or she is on the property by the express or implied invitation of the owner. Thus, pretty much anyone who comes over to someone's home as a (social) guest or to perform any services is covered by this law.
This liability does not preclude all common law defenses. Thus dog owner may raise the defense of assumption of risk or willfully invited injury. This type of defense is typically available is where the alleged victim was attacked after trying to hurt or taunt the dog. Also, if a person knows and and appreciates the danger involved in encountering an animal such as a hostile and barking dog, and voluntarily accepts the risk by exposing himself to the hazard, the injured person may had difficulty winning his case.
The defense of assumption of the risk extends only to the danger that the injured person has knowingly assumed. The dog owner would generally not be relieved of liability of the victim's injuries, if he purposefully or negligently concealed a particular hazard, since this would expose the injured person to an unknown risk. Thus, a dog's prior history of vicious behavior and the dog's owners of that behavior is highly relevant and often critical in winning a dog bit injury case.
This liability does not preclude all common law defenses. Thus dog owner may raise the defense of assumption of risk or willfully invited injury. This type of defense is typically available is where the alleged victim was attacked after trying to hurt or taunt the dog. Also, if a person knows and and appreciates the danger involved in encountering an animal such as a hostile and barking dog, and voluntarily accepts the risk by exposing himself to the hazard, the injured person may had difficulty winning his case.
The defense of assumption of the risk extends only to the danger that the injured person has knowingly assumed. The dog owner would generally not be relieved of liability of the victim's injuries, if he purposefully or negligently concealed a particular hazard, since this would expose the injured person to an unknown risk. Thus, a dog's prior history of vicious behavior and the dog's owners of that behavior is highly relevant and often critical in winning a dog bit injury case.
RSS Feed
