Kirk Bernard Helps Injury Victims Comprehend Washington State Dog Bite Laws
Kirk Bernard
November 20, 2009
Dog bite laws in Washington and throughout the U.S. historically allowed the victim of a dog bite to recover damages from the dog's owner only if he could prove that the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog's viciousness or propensity to bite. This is commonly known as the "One Bite Rule."
This rule has frequently resulted in unjust outcomes for dog bite victims, due to the fact that there were no mandatory reporting requirements regarding dog bites and injuries. Under this rule, the victim had difficulty proving that the dog had previously injured someone else. The dog owner could simply deny knowledge of previous injuries inflicted by his dog. As a result, the victims legal claim would fail and be dismissed.
Dog Bites Today
The Washington state legislature supplemented the "One Bite Rule" by enacting a specific statute that removed the requirement of proving the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite. The statute holds that the owner of a dog that bites a person when that person is on or in a public place or lawfully in or on a private place (including the dog owner's property with proper consent) is liable for damages suffered by the person who is bitten, "regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness." (16.08.040) This effectively holds the dog owner strictly liable for bites and injuries inflicted by his dog. However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person is a complete defense to an action for damages.
The statute defines an "owner" as "any person, firm, corporation, organization or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in or having control or custody of an animal." (16.08.070)
The dog owner could be in more trouble than just being sued for damages. Under the statute, if the owner's dog aggressively attacks and causes serious injury or death to a person, the owner can be convicted of a class C felony. This felony is punishable by five years in state prison, or a fine of $10,000, or both. Keep in mind that the dog does not have to have been previously declared potentially dangerous or dangerous for the dog owner to be guilty of this felony.
Affirmative Defense
There is, however, an affirmative defense to this potential conviction. If the injured or killed person trespassed on the dog owner's property or provoked the dog without justification on the dog owner's property, the State then has the burden of showing that the dog's owner knew or should have known the dog was potentially dangerous as defined by statute. Section 16.08.070 contains the definition: when unprovoked, the dog inflicts bites on humans or domestic animals on public or private property, or when unprovoked, the dog chases or approaches a person in a menacing manner. Also, any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals also meets this definition. It is important to note that for the dog owner to invoke this affirmative defense, his property must be fenced and have signs indicating no trespassing and warning of the dog.
With the seriousness and danger of dog bites, laws need to protect victims as well as make dog owners aware of their responsibility to control their dogs.
In the event that you or a loved one has endured a serious dog bite and believe that the dog owner was negligent, you may be able to seek compensation. Contact skilled Washington dog bite attorney Kirk Bernard to learn more about your legal rights. Call 1-800-418-8282 today for a free consultation.
This rule has frequently resulted in unjust outcomes for dog bite victims, due to the fact that there were no mandatory reporting requirements regarding dog bites and injuries. Under this rule, the victim had difficulty proving that the dog had previously injured someone else. The dog owner could simply deny knowledge of previous injuries inflicted by his dog. As a result, the victims legal claim would fail and be dismissed.
Dog Bites Today
The Washington state legislature supplemented the "One Bite Rule" by enacting a specific statute that removed the requirement of proving the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite. The statute holds that the owner of a dog that bites a person when that person is on or in a public place or lawfully in or on a private place (including the dog owner's property with proper consent) is liable for damages suffered by the person who is bitten, "regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness." (16.08.040) This effectively holds the dog owner strictly liable for bites and injuries inflicted by his dog. However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person is a complete defense to an action for damages.
The statute defines an "owner" as "any person, firm, corporation, organization or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in or having control or custody of an animal." (16.08.070)
The dog owner could be in more trouble than just being sued for damages. Under the statute, if the owner's dog aggressively attacks and causes serious injury or death to a person, the owner can be convicted of a class C felony. This felony is punishable by five years in state prison, or a fine of $10,000, or both. Keep in mind that the dog does not have to have been previously declared potentially dangerous or dangerous for the dog owner to be guilty of this felony.
Affirmative Defense
There is, however, an affirmative defense to this potential conviction. If the injured or killed person trespassed on the dog owner's property or provoked the dog without justification on the dog owner's property, the State then has the burden of showing that the dog's owner knew or should have known the dog was potentially dangerous as defined by statute. Section 16.08.070 contains the definition: when unprovoked, the dog inflicts bites on humans or domestic animals on public or private property, or when unprovoked, the dog chases or approaches a person in a menacing manner. Also, any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals also meets this definition. It is important to note that for the dog owner to invoke this affirmative defense, his property must be fenced and have signs indicating no trespassing and warning of the dog.
With the seriousness and danger of dog bites, laws need to protect victims as well as make dog owners aware of their responsibility to control their dogs.
In the event that you or a loved one has endured a serious dog bite and believe that the dog owner was negligent, you may be able to seek compensation. Contact skilled Washington dog bite attorney Kirk Bernard to learn more about your legal rights. Call 1-800-418-8282 today for a free consultation.
Print
Email
