Determining liability in dog bite injury cases can be both simple and complex.
Since dogs themselves cannot truly be held accountable in a court of law, blame for a dog attack generally falls on the dog's owner.
This seems reasonable - a pet owner ought to be held responsible for allowing his or her pet to attack, injure, or kill another person; any conscientious pet owner could be expected to take preventative measures against an animal attack.
The issue may not be as simple as it seems at first glance, however.
Dangerous Propensity In the United States, there is no single unifying standard for assigning liability in dog bite cases.
Some states have statutes which apply only to a pet owner, while others may hold responsible anyone who was in possession of the dog at the time of the attack.
Compensation may also vary from state to state; some areas require full compensation, but others provide only partial compensation.
The common thread which runs through most animal attack statutes is known as "dangerous propensity.
" It essentially says that a dog's owner can only be held liable for an attack if he or she knew or should have known that the dog had a "dangerous propensity" or tendency to bite, maul, or otherwise attack people without being provoked.
Dangerous propensity can be established in a variety of ways, as demonstrated by dozens of different court cases.
Factors such as a dog's species, training, occupation, or general character may or may not be enough to prove dangerous propensity, depending on the case.
The actions of the owner may also be used as proof of foreknowledge; if a pet owner brags about his dog's aggressiveness, keeps the dog muzzled around people, or has signs on his property warning about the dog, a court may rule that he knew about his dog's viciousness, whether or not the animal had a history of violence.
The "One Bite Rule" Currently, just over a third of the United States has adopted the "one bite rule" as a guideline for judging dog attack cases.
In a simple statement, the one bite rule holds that a dog's owner cannot be expected to be aware of dangerous propensity unless the dog has previously bitten or attacked someone.
The one bite rule is a double-edged sword - on the one hand, dog owners receive a sort of shield or buffer against an unexpected incident; on the other hand, the rule also provides a strong basis for holding the owner responsible for any subsequent attacks.