When a dog harms a child in New York, parents understandably wonder if they can hold the dog’s owner responsible. New York follows a legal principle known as the “one bite” rule. This rule may affect whether or not the dog owner must pay for injuries.
However, the law also considers the specific facts of each case, especially when a child is the person who gets hurt.
What is the one bite rule?
The “one bite” rule means that a dog owner is usually not liable for the first time a dog bites someone, unless the owner already knew the dog was dangerous. To prove liability, the injured party must show that the dog had vicious propensities. This includes any behavior that shows a tendency to attack, lunge, growl aggressively or act in a threatening manner.
Do courts apply the rule when a child gets hurt?
In cases involving children, courts still require proof of the dog’s prior behavior. However, a child’s young age may play a role in how the court views the incident. For example, if a dog had shown signs of aggression in the past and the owner allowed the dog near a child anyway, the court may find that decision unreasonable and careless.
The law does not automatically hold owners responsible just because their dog injured someone. Even when a child suffers harm, the legal test still focuses on the dog’s history and whether the owner knew or should have known the dog posed a danger.
Parents should gather any available evidence that shows the dog had acted aggressively before the attack. Previous complaints from neighbors or signs warning of a dangerous dog could help support a claim.
While the “one bite” rule can make it more difficult to win a dog bite case, it does not completely block recovery. If the dog had any history of aggression, and the owner failed to protect others, especially children, the law may hold that person responsible for the child’s injuries.
