Mesa Car Accident Lawyer

Dogs are the most popular pet in the U.S. According to the most recent American Pet Products Association, 70% of American households own pets and 69 million own dogs. While many people love their dogs, these pets seriously endanger others. A dog bite might cause catastrophic injuries or death. If you were seriously injured after being bitten by a dog, you might be entitled to pursue compensation from the dog’s owner. A Mesa dog bite attorney at Lamber Goodnow can analyze the facts what happened and explain whether you might have grounds to pursue compensation for both your economic and non-economic losses.

Arizona’s Dog Bite Statute

In some states, dog owners must know that their dogs are vicious or likely to bite others before they can be held liable for dog bites. This type of approach is known as a one-bite rule since owners in those states are not presumed to know of their dogs’ propensities to bite until they have bitten someone. By contrast, however, Arizona follows a strict liability rule for dog bite cases.

According to ARS 11-1025, Arizona holds dog owners liable for dog bites when they bite other people on the public property regardless of whether the owners knew their dogs had a propensity to bite. Similarly, dog owners are held strictly liable when their dogs bite others on private property who are legally present. However, there are some exceptions to the strict liability of dog owners when the dog is a military dog or police dog in the following types of situations:

• Military/police dog bites the person after being provoked or to defend itself
• Military/police dog bites a suspect whom the police are trying to apprehend
• Military/police dog bites someone while a crime is being investigated
• Military/police dog bites during the service of an arrest warrant
• Military/police dog bites in defense of a police officer or another person

One important caveat about Arizona’s dog bite statute is that it only dog owners can be held strictly liable. Others who might have possession of a dog that bites will not be strictly liable under the holding in Johnson v. Svidergol, 157 Ariz. 333 (1988). If someone has a dog but is not the dog’s owner, there might be other ways to pursue compensation such as a negligence cause of action. Similarly, the strict liability law only applies when a dog bites another person but does not for other types of dog attacks in which someone is injured but was not bitten.

Some examples of when a dog’s owner might be liable when the dog bites someone else might include when the dog bites someone in a public park or while walking along a public trail or sidewalk. Dog owners are also strictly liable when their dogs bite people they have invited to their homes and those who are legally present on their property for legitimate business reasons, including meter readers, delivery people, postal carriers, and those who are present for work purposes.

Since trespassers are not legally present, they likely will not be able to hold a dog’s owner strictly liable when they are bitten. However, it’s a good idea for dog owners to post warning signs to trespassers about their dogs so that there will not be a question about whether the owners impliedly invited the trespassers to the property.

Understanding Lawful Presence

According to ARS 11-1026, lawful presence means that someone is present by the invitation of the dog’s owner, is a social guest, or is there to complete a duty recognized by local, state, or federal law.

Even if a person is lawfully present when they are bitten by a dog, the dog’s owner can defend against a finding of strict liability if the victim provoked the dog according to ARS 11-1027. If a dog’s owner raises provocation as a defense, the court will assess whether someone else would reasonably believe that the victim’s actions were enough to provoke the dog to bite. Some examples of provocation might include hitting a dog. Under the holding in Toney v. Bouthillier, 129 Ariz. 402 (1981), even a toddler accidentally stepping on the tail of a dog might be considered sufficient provocation.

Dogs at Large

According to ARS 11-1020, both dog owners and possessors are strictly liable when dogs are roaming at large and cause injuries or property damage. Unlike the dog bite statute, this statute does provide a way for victims to hold non-owners strictly liable when they are injured by a dog that is allowed to roam off-leash, including when they are injured in an attack without bites. For example, if a dogwalker takes the leash off of a dog and allows it to roam through a park, the dogwalker might be strictly liable to an elderly victim who is knocked down by the roaming dog and seriously injured.

Negligence Causes of Action

In Murdock v. Balle, 144 Ariz. 136 (1985), the court held that victims can still pursue negligence claims against dog owners or possessors even though the strict liability dog bite statute exists. When a dog owner is negligent and causes their dog to attack and injure someone, the victim can file a lawsuit that includes both a negligence cause of action and a strict liability cause of action. Filing both types of causes of action might make it likelier that the victim will recover damages.

People might be able to pursue negligence per se causes of action when the dog bite occurs while the owner or possessor of the dog was breaking a municipal ordinance or a state statute. For example, a person who violates a leash ordinance or statute might be liable under both strict liability and negligence per se causes of action. A person is negligent per se when they act in violation of a law or ordinance and cause harm to others.

Dog Bite Statute of Limitations

Arizona’s statute of limitations for strict liability dog bite claims is one year from the date of the dog bite and resulting injuries. This means that you must file your claim within one year of your attack to pursue a strict liability claim against the dog’s owner.

Under ARS 12-542, there is a two-year statute of limitations for negligence claims. If you miss the deadline for filing a strict liability claim, you might be able to pursue a negligence claim against the dog owner. However, this will require you to prove that the dog owner’s negligence caused the dog to bite and resulted in your injuries and losses.

Finally, your ability to pursue any type of action will be barred if you fail to file a lawsuit against the dog’s owner for more than two years after your attack. The best approach to take is to contact a Mesa dog bite lawyer at Lamber Goodnow as soon as possible after you were bitten by a dog to help preserve evidence and strengthen your claim.