Dog Owners Can Face Strict Liability

Household pets provide invaluable companionship, however, they can expose owners to expensive liability. In Massachusetts, dog owners’ liability is largely governed by statute. Under M.G.L. c. 149 Section 155, dog owners are liable for bodily or property damage their dogs cause to others. It does not matter that the dog owner has no reason to believe the dog would ever bite a person or otherwise cause damage. Generally, if the damage is done, the owner is liable.

There are exceptions where an owner would not be liable for the damages his dog caused. For example, the owner would likely not be liable if the person claiming injury was injured while trespassing on the owner’s land. Also, if the person claiming injury was teasing, tormenting, or provoking the animal, the owner may not be liable. However, those laws do not apply to everyone. Children under age 7 are presumed by law not to have been trespassing, teasing or otherwise provoking the animal, and so would likely be able to recover against an owner unless the owner could prove otherwise.

Auto accidents resulting from a motorist’s attempt to avoid an unleashed dog can also expose the dog owner to liability. Additionally, if you are warned by the local dog officer to restrain your dog, and you fail to do so, you will be liable for triple damages in the case of injury.

Interestingly, parents or guardians of minors who own dogs can also be held liable for injuries caused by the minor’s dog.

In light of the burden of strict liability that the law places on dog owners, you should take precautions by restraining your dog to reduce the likelihood of injury to others. Additionally, it is sensible for you to purchase home owners’ or renters’ insurance to protect yourself against a potential judgment of liability if your animal does in fact cause injury.

So is true with regard to wild animals. The law defines a wild animal as one “that is not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept”. In essence, it is an animal which poses an abnormal risk to the community where it is kept.

The owner or keeper of a wild animal is strictly liable to another for damage done to the other’s person or property. This liability does not depend on proof of previous acts showing a vicious disposition on the part of the animal, nor can the owner or keeper escape liability by showing that he has exercised the utmost care to confine the animal or otherwise prevent it from doing harm. In our Commonwealth, this rule has been applied to damage and injury caused by a zebra, a bear, and a stag. In other states it has been applied to injury caused by a monkey, coyote, and lion.

This rule has been applied to the owner of land who arranged for an animal show and profited from it. It is based on the rational that since animals have no conscience with which to restrain themselves, and possess great capacity to do mischief if not restrained, those who keep them have a duty to restrain them or pay.

An owner or possessor of a wild animal may be held strictly liable to a trespasser, so long as the trespasser did not voluntarily and negligently put himself in a position which was likely to result in injury.

And you thought having your dog run freely was going to be free!