The one bite rule was announced by British judges in the 1600s, and thus became the law for the American colonies. (See History of the One Bite Rule.) However, it has no place in modern America.
The one bite rule was announced centuries ago, in pastoral England, when dogs, hogs, mules and sheep wandered aimlessly through towns, as a normal part of life. In those long-gone days, judges announced that the owner or keeper of a domestic animal would not be held liable until it bit someone first. There was no need for people to be vigilant about their animals because the law did not require people to take any level of responsibility until after a tragedy occurred.
This was centuries before the development of the pit bull and the passage of the first animal cruelty laws. It was a time when it was not illegal for your dog to wander to another person’s property, and not illegal for that person to beat your dog or even kill it if it behaved viciously. It was a time when there was no homeowners or renters insurance. It was a time when the USA and its principles of human rights did not even exist.
The one bite rule tells the people that it is okay for their dog to bite someone, once. That they are not responsible for it. That there is no consequence when it happens. That they can look the other way. Shrug it off. Forget about it.
They can get rid of that dog and replace it with another dog that bites someone, with no consequences if it was the first bite. They can get two more dogs that bite people, with no consequences if they never bit anyone before. After that, they can get 5 more dogs that bite someone, or 10 more — and on and on, with no consequences for the first bite by each dog.
The one bite rule has been roundly criticised by scholars and appellate judges, who have called for its repeal:
“A dog should have no greater right to a first bite than one has to a first murder. And as between the dog owner and a blameless victim, the owner is almost certainly in the better position to judge the dog’s proclivity to bite. Yet, under the ‘first bite’ paradigm, one may be subjected, without recourse, to an animal’s first attack, and that animal’s owner has little incentive to guard against this potentially deadly event.” Ruffin, J, concurring specially in Clark, et al., v. Joiner, 242 Ga. App. 421 (2000).
In modern America, our ideas about personal responsibility are far different than those held in the 1600s. We believe that every one of us who has sufficient mental capacity should be held responsible for the harm that we cause, and the harm caused by our things, our employees and our children, under our “watch.” We have developed far more equitable rules for determining fault and spreading risk.
We also have created breeds of dog specifically for the purpose of killing, and animal cruelty laws that deter the rule-abiding citizen from defending himself and his family. As a result, the number of people being seriously injured and killed by dogs is rising steadily. (See Statistics.)
Because the one bite rule is clearly out of touch with modern American ideals, it has been rejected by the vast majority of American states and the District of Columbia. They have passed legislation that supplements the one bite rule by making dog owners almost strictly liable for dog bites, including the first bite. (See Legal Rights of a Dog Bite Victim, which has links to the dog bite statutes throughout the USA.)
The one bite rule is still relevant to a degree, because it makes clear that a dog owner, or anyone who harbors or keeps a dog (or, for that matter, any domestic animal) will be held legally liable for keeping it after learning it can harm a person or property. It is the foundation of American civil, criminal, and animal control laws. But on top of that foundation, there needs to be something more.
Specifically, every American state needs a dog bite statute statute that makes every dog owner, keeper or harborer legally liable for any and all injuries caused by his or her dog, other than injuries to a teenager or adult caused by provocation or trespassing. If dog owners know there will be consequences for every bite, even the first bite, they will be less inclined to permit their dogs to roam, they will pay better attention to clues that a dog is overly aggressive, and ultimately there will be fewer injuries.
The time has come for every state to demand from its dog owners not the level of responsibility appropriate for the citizens of an English town 400 years ago, but of modern America. When “defendants realize that they may be held liable, there is of course a strong incentive to prevent the occurrence of the harm. Not infrequently one reason for imposing liability is the deliberate purpose of providing that incentive.” Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts, 4 at 25-26 (5th ed. 1984).