What are the Most Common Defense Strategies for Dog Bite Defense Lawsuits?

These are the most common defense strategies that we use at The Animal Law Firm. Of course, understanding your state laws is critical in crafting the right defense for your situation. We highly recommend contacting an attorney within your state who knows the local laws and regulations.

If you live in Colorado or Texas we can help build the correct dog bite defense that will help you mitigate or negate liability for you and your pet.

1. Trespassing Defense:

If the person bitten was trespassing on your property, this may serve as an adequate defense, especially if your dog was confined or restrained in a way that the trespasser had to actively enter the property to encounter the dog. The argument is that individuals who enter property unlawfully do not have the same protections as lawful visitors. This includes people who stick their hands (or body parts) through your fence and are bitten.

This defense is particularly relevant in jurisdictions with strict liability statutes like Colorado and Texas. However, it’s important to note that the definition of “trespassing” can vary, and there may be exceptions depending on the circumstances of the intrusion.

2. Provocation:

If the person bitten was provoking the dog through aggressive behavior or teasing, this can be a valid dog bite defense. The argument can be made that the dog reacted defensively or aggressively because it felt threatened. There are also arguments to be made from the perspective of the dog. Dogs think differently than humans and should not be held to a human-standard of understanding threats. Most of the times prosecutors or plaintiffs’ counsel will want to ram through a human-level of understanding of threats, but this is inaccurate and improper. At The Animal Law Firm, we have access to dog behavior experts who can help present the best defense possible from the perspective and understanding of your dog.

This can be an effective defense in states like Texas, which require proof of the dog’s prior dangerous behavior in order for strict liability to attach. In strict liability states, like Colorado, provocation might not completely absolve liability but could potentially reduce the damages awarded.

Strict liability is legalese for: if your dog bit, you are liable. It is much easier to obtain strict liability judgments in Colorado because it only requires that the dog have bitten once – and that one time can be the time that you are in court for. It’s illogical and prejudicial in our opinion, but it is the way the law is written. Colorado also has a strict liability criminal dog bite statute, so it is especially important to know your rights regarding strict liability in Colorado.

3. Contributory Negligence:

In some jurisdictions, a defense of contributory negligence may be available. This defense argues that the injured party’s own negligence contributed to the injury. For example, if the person bitten was not using proper caution or was engaging in reckless behavior, this may be relevant. This is applicable in Texas.

This defense is often used in comparative fault jurisdictions, where the degree of fault is allocated between the parties. States like Texas might consider this more frequently than states with strict liability statutes, where the focus is more on the dog’s behavior and less on the victim’s actions.

Colorado has a modified comparative negligence defense, which is different than contributory negligence. In Colorado, if the plaintiff (the party who was bitten) was negligent by 50% or more, they cannot recover any damages.

It’s important to work with an attorney who knows how to navigate the various comparative negligence doctrines and apply them appropriately for maximum benefit to your case.

4. Assumption of Risk:

This defense argues that the person bitten knew the risk associated with being around dogs and voluntarily chose to accept that risk. This could apply if the person had prior knowledge of the dog’s aggressive tendencies but chose to interact with the dog nonetheless.

Assumption of risk may be more effective in cases where the injured party had explicit knowledge of the dog’s behavior and willingly interacted with the dog. This defense is less likely to be applicable in strict liability states.

5. Dog’s Behavior Was Not Predictable:

If the dog’s behavior was sudden and unexpected, and the owner had no prior indication of aggressive tendencies, this defense might be relevant. This is particularly pertinent in states that require knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities (e.g., Texas).

In strict liability states, this defense is less likely to absolve the owner of liability but might be used to argue for reduced damages or to mitigate the perception of negligence.

7. Inadequate Evidence of Injury:

In some cases, the defense may challenge the extent or legitimacy of the alleged injury. This could involve questioning medical evidence, the severity of the bite, or the impact on the victim’s life.

This defense is relevant across all jurisdictions and can be particularly effective in minimizing potential damages or disputing the claims of severe injury.

—-
Each defense’s effectiveness will depend on the specific facts of the case and the jurisdiction’s legal standards. While strict liability statutes in states like Colorado limit the effectiveness of some defenses, in states like Texas, where knowledge and prior behavior are key factors, certain defenses may have more substantial impact.

It is crucial to consult with a local attorney who specializes in personal injury and dog bite cases to tailor the defense strategy to your specific circumstances and jurisdictional requirements. Do you help navigating Dog Bite Law in CO or TX? Call our our animal lawyers at The Animal Law Firm at 1-844-PET-LAWYER (1-844-738-5299) today.