In states where the common law One Bite Rule applies, the laws state that dog owners are not liable for their dog biting someone unless the owner knows or should know that the dog has “dangerous propensities that are abnormal to its class.” As Houston dog bite attorneys, we are forced to prove what the owner “knew or should have known” about the dog’s propensities. Owners will not often volunteer information about prior bites and many bites go unreported. Thus, understanding what makes a dog abnormally dangerous is the key to understanding dog bite liability. Additionally, one must understand what “class” a dog falls under to know what propensities are abnormal to the class.
What is a Dog’s “Class” Under the One Bite Rule?
Under the One Bite Rule, a dog is considered to fall under the class of “domestic animals.” One Texas court defined this as “Domestic Animals: Such as are habituated to live in or about the habitations of men, or such as contribute to the support of a family.” Powers v. Palacios, 794 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, 1990). It is interesting to note that domestic animals are not simply defined as “pets.” In the case of Marshall v. Ranne 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex.1974), a hog was considered a domestic animal for purposes of the One Bite Rule. Thus, the term “domestic animal” at least includes farm animals as well as pets.
What Makes a Dog Abnormally Dangerous?
A dog is considered abnormally dangerous when it has demonstrated a propensity to bite a human being. A review of relevant caselaw demonstrated that if the owner is aware of such a propensity—not an actual bite—then the owner is liable for the dog’s actions when it actually does bite. This is what makes the name “One Bite Rule” somewhat misleading.
Must There Be a Prior Bite for One Bite Rule Liability?
No. “The fact that the dog has even attempted to attack human beings…is sufficient to bring its possessor within the rule…” Houston v. Jenkins, 363 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dis.t], 2012). The moment a dog demonstrates a willingness to bite a human and the owner becomes aware of this fact, the owner is responsible for preventing future bites and strictly liable if he fails to do so.
What If the Dog Is Trained to Bite but Has No Priors?
A dog that has been trained to bite, whether as an attack dog, guard dog, or fighting dog, possesses a propensity abnormal to that of typical domestic animals. See Houston v. Jenkins at page 816. (“A dog that has been trained to bite or has a history of doing so has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class.”) Thus, a dog owner becomes liable by knowledge of such training, not by a prior bite. The training is what gives the dog the abnormally dangerous characteristics that create dog bite liability.
Are Certain Breeds Dangerous Dogs as a Matter of Law?
Some states allow municipalities and courts to use dog breeds as a basis for determining that a dog is dangerous. Pit bull bans are the most common of breed-specific laws and are based upon their view that pit bulls are dangerous dogs by breed. Indeed these and other breeds like Presa Canarios, or Rottweilers can be difficult to insure due to views about the breed’s tendencies. In those jurisdictions, it is wise to familiarize yourself with local laws and ordinances. Other states, like Texas, have laws prohibiting breed-specific legislation. (Texas Health and Safety Code, 822.047.)
Dangerous Dog by Notice
In many states, safety laws have been enacted to further impose obligations on the part of dog owners to prevent dog attacks. One such law is the Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. Sec 822.042(g) which reads:
“A person learns he or she has a dangerous dog in only three ways: (1) the owner knows of an attack by the dog; (2) the owner receives notice that a justice court, county court, or municipal court has found that the dog is a dangerous dog; or (3) the owner is informed by animal control authority that the dog is a dangerous dog.”
This statute does not abrogate the common law One Bite Rule but supplements it by clarifying when a dog is considered a dangerous dog and expanding the ways in which a dog falls under strict liability by making it dangerous as a matter of law when the owner is informed it is dangerous by a court or animal control officer. It does not matter whether the owner has knowledge of the acts leading to the determination. The notice equals the knowledge.
Conclusion
Under the One Bite Rule, a dog has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class when it has demonstrated the propensity to attack a human. A bite is not required for liability under the One Bite Rule. The owner can be liable when he is aware of a bite, of the propensity, or simply placed on notice by proper authorities in some States. The dog’s breed is typically not a consideration in the determination unless you are in a state that allows municipalities, counties, and/or courts to make this decision.
Author
