Dog Bite Law

Alabama

Alabama is strict liability state, provided that the injury happens on the dog owner's property, or off the dog owner's property if the dog chased the victim there. If the residential requirement is not met, a dog bite victim must prove scienter, negligence or negligence per se. Alabama also is a contributory negligence state.

Overview

There are three circumstances that may make a dog owner liable for a dog bite in Alabama:

The Alabama dog bite statute. It states that a dog owner will be responsible for the bite or any other damage caused by the dog, but only if the victim had lawfully been on the dog owner's property, and either was bitten there, or chased from there and then bitten. (3 Ala. Code sec. 3-6-1.)

Negligence. This theory can apply to the dog owner or the handler of the dog. If he or she was negligent, and if that negligence was the sole and entire cause of the accident, then he or she will be responsible for the injury.

Common law strict liability. If a known dangerous propensity or habit of the dog was the sole cause of the injury, then the dog owner will be responsible for the injury.

However, keep in mind that Alabama is one of the states that adheres to the ancient rule of contributory negligence. Therefore, if negligence of the victim was one of the causes of the accident, the victim will not be entitled to any compensation at all.

Dog bite statute

The Alabama dog bite statute is section 3-6-1 of Alabama Statutes:

If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be, the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so bitten or injured, but such liability shall arise only when the person so bitten or injured is upon property owned or controlled by the owner of such dog at the time such bite or injury occurs or when such person has been immediately prior to such time on such property and has been pursued therefrom by such dog.

Other grounds for liability

If the dog bite statute does not apply, there are other several grounds upon which liability can be based.

Scienter

In cases seeking damages for injuries sustained from a dog bite where the statute does not apply, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the owner of the dog had knowledge of, or had reason to know of, the dog's dangerous propensities. Rucker v. Goldstein, 497 So. 2d 491 (Ala. 1986); Allen v. Whitehead, 423 So. 2d 835 (Ala. 1982). The crucial issue is "whether the owner knows, or had reason to know, of the animal's dangerous propensities." Allen v. Whitehead, 423 So. 2d 835 (Ala. 1982). If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof, the defendant is not liable.

The dog owner's testimony that she was afraid that her dog might be hostile to a very young child because the dog had been teased by other, older children was sufficient to overcome the dog owner's motion for summary judgment on the issue of knowledge of dangerousness in a dog bite case. White v. Law, 454 So. 2d 515 (Ala. 1984).

Fighting with other dogs was not sufficient to prove knowledge of dangerousness to people. Kent v. Sims, 460 So. 2d 144 (Ala. 1984).

Breed as basis of knowledge of dangerousness

In Edgar v. Riley, 725 So.2d 982 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998), the owners of a pit bull were deemed to be aware of its dangerous propensity to attack without warning, even though it never had done so in the past, thereby supporting a jury's finding of civil liability for a dog bite.

Trespass

Trespassing dog: If a dog trespasses but there is no violation of a local animal control law such as a leash law or running at large law, the dog bite statute cannot be used and therefore the issue will be whether scienter or negligence can be proved. Rucker v. Goldstein, 497 So. 2d 491 (Ala. 1986) ("It is undisputed in this case that the attack on Mrs. Rucker happened off the owner's premises, some nine miles from appellee's home, so that this action is governed by the rules of common law negligence.")

Trespassing child: A child who regularly visits a friend and was welcome there, never having been forbidden to go there, is deemed to have the consent and permission of the owner of the property, and is a licensee on the property; as such, the owner is under a duty not to negligently injure him and, therefore, can be held liable when the child is bitten by a dog on the property. Edgar v. Riley, 725 So.2d 982 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998).

Landlord liability

In a case against a landlord, it was held that the presence of a tenant's vicious dog in areas shared by other tenants constitutes a "dangerous condition" and that a landlord must exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries from such a dangerous condition. Gentle v. Pine Valley Apartments, 631 So. 2d 928 (Ala. 1994). Notice to the premises owner, either direct or imputed, of the dangerous condition is the sine qua non of liability. (Id.) Therefore, in the absence of notice, there can be no liability. (Id.)

Injury caused by something other than a bite

In a non-bite case, an owner of a domestic animal is not liable for an injury caused by the animal unless it can be shown that the owner had previous knowledge of the animal's mischievous propensity. Durden v. Barnett, 7 Ala. 169 (1844), followed in Buckner v. Goldstein, 497 So. 2d 491 (Ala. 1986). Evidence that a defendant's dogs had chased and barked at people riding bicycles and/or walking, as well as at automobiles, was sufficient to prove that she was aware that her dogs had the propensity to chase and bark at people and cause a fleeing person to fall and incur injury. Davis v. Ulin, 523 So. 2d 365 (Ala. 1988).

Negligence

In Owen v. Hampson, 258 Ala. 228, 62 So. 2d 245 (1952), this Court held that the common law rule of negligence is still applicable to dogbite cases in Alabama. The early case of Durden v. Barnett & Harris, 7 Ala. 169, 170 (1844), set out the rule as follows:

"It is said the owner of domestic animals, not necessarily inclined to commit mischief, such as dogs, horses, etc., is not liable for an injury committed by them, unless it can be shown that he previously had notice of the animal's mischievous propensity; or, that the injury was attributable to some neglect on his part.... From this it would seem to follow that it was necessary to alledge and prove a scienter." (Emphasis in original.)

Litigation forms and other materials for attorneys

Just about all the documents you will need for your dog bitecase, at a price that is less that what it would cost to type them. Complaint, interrogatories, document production requests, admissions, witness list, petition for approval of minor's compromise (structured settlement), order approving minor's compromise, and Kenneth Phillips' 50-page deposition outline that covers every issue that can arise in a dog bite case. Save hours of work with the Dog Bite Litigation Forms for Plaintiffs' Lawyers. Good throughout the USA. Available just one minute after you purchase them at the Dog Bite Law Bookstore. Download and use today.

Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case is Mr. Phillips' 2-1/2 hour video seminar for plaintiffs' lawyers, containing tips and tricks, practice pointers and winning strategies that cannot be found anywhere else. A highly rated legal best-seller. Covers case selection, establishing liability, dealing with defenses, settlement and litigation throughout the USA. Arrives by mail in less than a week. There is a special discount if you purchase this and the Litigation Forms at the same time.

www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections and products, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser, Dog Bite Litigation Forms, What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed, Avoiding Liability When You Train, Shelter or Adopt-Out, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case, and the foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2008 Kenneth M. Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing. Please read the disclaimer and our rules for linking and quoting. Reporters seeking interviews are welcome to click here.