A dog bite victim in the District of Columbia can receive compensation if there is proof of negligence, scienter, a prior classification of the dog as being “dangerous,” or that the dog owner ordered the attack. This is a contributory negligence state, so a victim who is negligent even insignificantly is barred from recovering compensation for the bite.
- Negligence
- Scienter
- Prior Classification as “Dangerous”
- For lawyers, Dog Bite Lawsuit Forms
- If your dog was injured, When a Dog Is Injured or Killed
Negligence
Negligence that results in a dog attack will make the negligent party legally liable to compensate the victim, provided that the victim is blameless (see Contributory Negligence, below). Negligence is the lack of ordinary care; that is, the absence of the kind of care a reasonably prudent and careful person would exercise in similar circumstances. If a person’s conduct in a given circumstance doesn’t measure up to the conduct of an ordinarily prudent and careful person, then that person was negligent. For example, letting a stray dog into a day care center is negligence.
Another way of proving negligence in the District of Columbia is to show that the defendant violated a leash law or another law that would have prevented the incident. For example, if a dog bites a victim while the dog is at large, the violation of section 8-1808 is evidence of negligence. Chadbourne v. Kappaz, 779 A. 2d 293 (DC Court of Appeals 2001). The Chadbourne court approved the trial court’s instruction to the jury, which was that an owner “allows” an animal to “go at large” if he “(a) intentionally permits the animal to go at large, or (b) fails to exercise due care to keep that animal from going at large. In determining the care required, you may consider the propensities of the animal known to the owner.” In other words, “allow” means to intentionally allow or to negligently allow; it does not mean “suffer” in the sense of “suffering” the dog to go at large. The other laws that prohibit a dog from being “at large” are these:
- Section 8-1801(a)(1)(A) defines “at large” as follows: “The term “animal at large” means any animal found off the premises of its owner and neither leashed nor otherwise under the immediate control of a person capable of physically restraining it.”
- Section 8-1808 states “No owner of an animal shall allow the animal to go at large.”
- Section 8-1812 provides, “If a dog injures a person while at large, lack of knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensity standing alone shall not absolve the owner from a finding of negligence.”
These statutes therefore create a single exception to the one bite rule: the victim is not required to prove scienter if a dog bites him while the dog is at large and if the dog is at large because of its owner’s negligence.
For more about negligence, see Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA.
Scienter
The traditional doctrine that makes a person liable for harm inflicted by a domestic animal is referred to as “scienter” (the Latin word for “knowingly”), “common law strict liability,” and “the one bite rule.” As it applies to dog bites, this doctrine holds that a victim can recover compensation from the owner, harborer or keeper of a dog if (a) the dog previously bit a person or acted like it wanted to, and (b) the defendant was aware of the dog’s previous conduct. Murphy v. Preston, No. 8545, 1887 WL 12655, at *5 (D.C. May 2, 1887) (“[T]he owner of a dog should not be held answerable unless it is averred and made to appear that he was aware of the vicious propensities of the animal, and nevertheless neglected to keep it where it could do no harm to inoffensive persons.”)
For more information, see The One Bite Rule.
Prior Classification as “Dangerous”
The District of Columbia has a dangerous dog statute, DC Code sec. 8-1901 et. seq. As explained in McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371, 377–79 (D.C. 2005):
The Council enacted the first legislation in this jurisdiction to regulate dangerous dogs in 1988. See generally D.C. Act 7–190, D.C. Reg. 35–4787, codified at D.C.Code §§ 6–1021.1—6–1021.8 (1995). This law continues to apply today.5 Any dog that “[h]as bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal without provocation,” or “[i]n a menacing manner, approaches without provocation any person or domestic animal as if to attack, or has demonstrated a propensity to attack without provocation or otherwise to endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals,” is a “dangerous dog” within the meaning of the statute. D.C.Code § 6–1021.1(1)(A)(i) & (ii). Once a dog has been classified as “dangerous” after a hearing conducted before the Mayor, see D.C.Code § 6–1021.2,6 the owner must, in addition to *378 complying with universally applicable licensing obligations, see D.C.Code § 6–1004 (1995), specially register his or her dog as a dangerous dog, see D.C.Code § 6–1021.4,7 and fulfill special responsibilities that apply only to owners of dangerous dogs. See D.C.Code § 6–1021.5.8 Violation *379 of any of these heightened duties may result in a fine not to exceed $300 for a first offense and $500 for a second offense. See D.C.Code § 1021.6(a). In addition, “[a]n owner of a dangerous dog that causes serious injury to or kills a human being or a domestic animal without provocation shall be fined up to $10,000.” D.C.Code § 6–1021.6(b).
After a dog is declared to be dangerous, its owner faces two problems. The first is strict liability for the next bite upon a human, because the declaration establishes scienter under the one-bite rule. The second problem is possible jail time. It is a misdemeanor to violate secs. 8-1904 or 8-1905. See sec. 8-1906.
Contributory Negligence
The District of Columbia is unkind to accident victims in general, and dog bite victims are no exception. DC adheres to the ancient and inhumane doctrine of contributory negligence. This doctrine prevents a victim from receiving any compensation if his or her conduct was even an insignificant cause of the accident. Other states and countries have adopted the doctrine of comparative fault, which “compares” the legal responsibility of the victim and the other parties, and provides compensation to the victim in direct proportion to the comparative responsibility of the parties (i.e., if the dog owner is 90% responsible and the victim is only 10% responsible, then the victim’s compensation is reduced by his or her 10% of fault). The time has come for DC to get in step with the rest of the country and replace contributory negligence with comparative fault.