Dog attacks and dog bites are in the news everywhere. The rules in insurance and in case law are now well documented and precedented and follow the “one free bite rule.” This means that a dog’s owner is not liable for their dog’s first bite. A dog owner will be found liable for his dog’s viciousness only if the owner had prior “notice” of the dog’s vicious propensity.
If the dog has had no history then the dog owner will not liable for the attack even if the injuries are disfiguring and serious. The owner would be liable, however if the dog attacked people prior in another attack issue only after the “notice.”

If the plaintiff cannot show prior attacks by notice, then the owner will not be liable since the dog has no violent history. The reasoning is that there would be no way that the owner would have any idea or belief that the dog would be violent.

The courts have ruled that it is not possible to judge a dog liable by breed. Even the appellate courts have ruled that a breed such as a pit bull does not necessarily make the dog violent.

So how does insurance view this in terms of negligence? If the dog owner has home owner’s or renter’s insurance the case will likely be covered if the plaintiff takes the owner and the dog to court. If the owner has no insurance, then there is no way to recoup the damages.

If a person is a victim of a dog attack, they should take prompt action to investigate and record all damages, including whether or not the dog has a violent history under the “one free bite” rule.