Dog Bite Cases: Strict Liability versus s the One Bite Rule

Dog bite causes often involve either strict liability or the one bite rule depending on the state and the circumstances of the attack from an animal against another person. Knowing what the differences are is important for the person responsible for the incident and any others included in the bite who may hold some liability.

Dog bite incidents are often complicated matters between the injured and the owner. Adding in two other rules of strict liability and the one bite rule, the case may then become confusing and complex. It is important to hire a lawyer to both understand these rules and how to proceed through the claim for liability and compensation. The bite itself may cause extensive damage depending on where the dog attacked and how aggressive he or she was during the bite. Other matters such as a dog walker and a keeper or harborer of the animal may increase the complexity of the incident.

One Bite Rule Explained

The one bite rule involves a knowledge of various issues that could affect the possibility of the dog biting another person. This may include the awareness of aggressive tendencies due to the breed of the dog or the personality of the animal. Other information in these claims depends on if the dog was peaceful until someone antagonized him or her or if a person attacked the owner. The one bite rule may increase the liability to the owner if he or she does know that the dog could bite strangers without provocation. The owner must take the necessary measures and precautions to prevent the attack when the dog is around others.

Strict Liability Explained

When a dog bites someone, the strict liability will usually hold the owner responsible for the attack in most situations. In strict liability, the court will hold the individual with the dog accountable for the bite even if he or she attempted to prevent it or took measures that should mitigate the possible damage of the animal attacking anyone. Some of these events include the person walking the dog, a person living with the animal or someone housesitting. The person that keeps the dog may extend to a number of friends, loved ones or acquaintances depending on the laws of the state or local regulations.

Strict liability does depend on the circumstances. If the owner becomes a defendant in the courtroom, he or she will need to defend the case against the plaintiff. The person attacked has a valid claim if he or she did not provoke the dog into attacking and he or she was in the vicinity legally during the bite. Any deviation of these two rules could provide the defendant with a valid claim against the strict liability regulations. Any knowledge that the dog could or would bite is not relevant in these cases. The state will generally determine if the strict liability rule will apply or how it will determine the case. Some regard the matter to only remain valid in public places while others affect the claim with a private residence.

The Differences in the Rules

While strict liability may charge anyone with responsibility in the bite, the one bite rule is different in that the person must know that the animal would attack someone. If the person with the dog is not the owner, he or she may have little or no knowledge that the animal would attack anyone. The one bite rule will hold the person accountable for damages and compensation depending on his or her prior awareness of aggression or violence from the animal against others or specific individuals. The dog may only attack males, and the owner may know this.

Another primary difference in strict liability and the one bite rule is that the plaintiff may have an easier time proving his or her case in strict liability. In these cases, the defendant normally will attempt to settle out of court to negotiate a better outcome. By settling the matter early, he or she may prevent additional expense of litigation and end the problem quickly.