Washington Dog Bite Laws
A Vancouver Personal Injury Attorney Will Fight For Your Compensation
Both the State of Washington and various Clark County communities, including the City of Vancouver, have laws that are meant to protect residents and prevent dog bites. However, despite these efforts, Clark County Animal Control receives as many as 1,000+ reports of vicious dogs in a year. And thousands of vicious attacks happen each year throughout the State of Washington.
Dog owners have both a legal and a moral responsibility to prevent attacks, but it often takes the hard work of law enforcement, and/or an experienced Washington dog bite attorney, to hold them accountable.
In the State of Washington, when a dog bites a person, the injured victim may be entitled to receive substantial compensation for things like medical expenses, lost wages, and what is generally referred to as “pain and suffering.” Because Washington law applies strict liability to the owner of a dog that bites or attacks a human and causes injury, you generally do not have to prove the dog previously bit someone or showed vicious tendencies, which is a requirement in some other states.
It is important for dog bite victims to understand their rights and seek justice. If you or a loved one was injured in a dog attack, you probably have lots of questions about what to do next. The Scott Law Firm PLLC has put together some information about the state’s dog laws that is intended to help educate others who have been bitten or attacked and suffered injury. Note that web content is not legal advice, and the information provided on this website is for informational purposes only. Additionally, some laws may or may not apply to your specific situation. Therefore, to learn more about how the law applies to the attack you’ve suffered, you should speak with a lawyer. Our law firm offers free consultations, and when you call us to schedule your appointment, you will speak directly with an experienced dog bite lawyer at no cost or obligation to you.
Washington Dog Bite Law Explained
In the context of personal injury, the term “liability” is generally used to describe legal responsibility for the harms and losses caused by an accident or event such as a dog attack. It is the threshold issue that must be determined first in every personal injury case, so that fault can be attributed to one or more persons or entities. In most dog bite cases, the person who is liable for a dog attack is going to be the dog’s owner. This is because the State of Washington applies strict liability, meaning you do not have to prove ordinary negligence, to “[t]he owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public space or lawfully in or on a private space including the property of the owner of such dog …” RCW 16.08.040.
Some states have a so-called “one-bite” rule, meaning that a dog basically gets one “free bite” before legal action can be taken (at a minimum, the dog’s owner must be aware of their pet’s prior vicious tendencies). This is not the general rule in Washington State, however, where dog owners may be held strictly liable, and therefore legally responsible, for injury resulting from their canine’s actions. Ordinary common law negligence may also be alleged against the dog’s owner (and potentially others), but it is often unnecessary due to Washington’s strict liability rule with regard to dog bites.
Many communities throughout the State of Washington, including right here in Clark County, have created additional legal standards that may apply to dog bite cases. The City of Vancouver, for example, has a Municipal Code that requires the owners of animals to take various precautions that are intended to promote the safety and wellbeing of residents as well as the animals themselves.
Civil and Criminal Liability for Dog Attacks
Dog bites and attacks can result in serious injury, especially when they involve children or elderly victims. Statistically, these are the two groups most likely to be bitten or attacked. Common injuries may include:
- Bite marks and lacerations to the face and hands
- Damage to nerves that are crushed or severed during the attack
- Scarring and disfigurement
- Emotional trauma
In most cases, the dog’s owner will generally be held to the same civil liability standards, regardless of the nature and severity of injuries that are inflicted during the attack. In the event of a serious attack, where a dog “aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human,” the dog’s owner may also be held criminally liable. See, e.g., RCW 16.08.100.
Difference Between Strict Liability and Negligence
The term strict liability, as used in some civil personal injury cases, including dog bites, means you do not need to prove negligence in order to hold the defendant legally responsible for damages. Instead, you simply need to show the defendant did whatever the law says they must have done (or failed to do) in order to be held accountable.
For example, the strict liability statute that applies to dog bites in the State of Washington clearly states “[t]he owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the form viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.” RCW 16.08.040(1).
The statute “does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog …” RCW 16.08.040(2). And if you continue reading Chapter 16.08 of the RCW (the chapter that discusses some of the various laws that apply to dogs state-wide), you will see that trespassing and provocation, if proven by the dog’s owner, will defeat strict liability under the statute.
Note: Washington has strict liability laws that apply to other areas of personal injury law that are discussed elsewhere on this website.
Negligence is an entirely different theory of liability, though it may be applied to the same set of facts in a given case, including one that involves a dog bite or injury. The origins of negligence, as a legal theory of liability, are in English and French common law (aka tort law). When negligence is alleged by a plaintiff, they are basically saying the person responsible for causing the injury did something wrong and committed a “tort,” which is the French word for “wrong.” Because much of our own legal system is based on old French and English common law, we sometimes use this older terminology.
Negligence is one of many torts and perhaps the most commonly used theory of liability in personal injury law. In order to prove common law negligence in a personal injury case, the person who is injured (called the plaintiff) must produce sufficient evidence to prove the following:
- Duty: There must be a legal duty owed by the defendant (the person alleged to have done something wrong) to the plaintiff (the person who was injured).
- Breach: The defendant must have breached this duty.
- Causation: The defendant’s breach of their duty, which is typically shown through their actions or inactions, must have caused those injuries alleged by plaintiff.
- Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm.
Those are the basic elements of common law negligence. If there is sufficient evidence to satisfy each of these elements, as determined by a judge or jury on a more likely than not basis (the evidentiary standard in most civil cases), then the plaintiff will prevail and a judgment will follow ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s damages. In this way, negligence is a very powerful tool that is commonly used to prove liability in personal injury cases, including when a dog bites or attacks someone.
Strict liability and negligence are two of the more common theories used in dog bite cases that occur within the State of Washington. However, they are just two theories of liability that may or may not apply to your individual situation. Each case is unique and presents its own challenges. Additionally, it is not possible to determine the best course of action in every case without first performing a detailed analysis of the individual facts.
Therefore, if you were bitten or attacked by a dog, it is important to consult with a qualified personal injury attorney who is licensed in Washington and familiar with our state’s laws before deciding how to proceed. There is also a time limit within which you must either resolve your claim(s) and/or take appropriate steps to preserve your ability to seek financial compensation in the future. If this time limit expires, your claim will disappear and you will not have any further recourse. That is why we recommend speaking with an attorney following a serious bite or attack as soon as it is practical to do so, and our office offers free consultations for this purpose.
Dangerous Dog Declaration Requirements
If a dog is evaluated and declared a “dangerous dog” under RCW 16.08.070, Washington State Law requires the owner to, among other things, carry at least $250,000 in liability insurance (or post a surety bond equal to or greater than this amount).
Clark County Ordinance Section 8.18.060 further requires the owner of a dog that is declared dangerous must microchip their dog, properly confine their dog, post clearly visible warning signs indicating there is a dangerous dog on the premises, muzzle and restrain their dog when it is not being confined, and take “[a]ny other reasonable action determined by the program manager to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public or other animals.”
Some examples of these safety precautions and dangerous dog declarations issued by Clark County Animal Protection are provided below.
Please note that, while these are real pictures taken in a case that was handled by our firm and are a matter of public record, they are only examples and should not be relied upon or used for any other purpose.
Liability Defenses in Dog Bite Cases
When someone is bitten or attacked by a dog belonging to someone else, the two most commonly available defenses in the State of Washington are trespassing and provocation. If the dog owner can successfully prove, on a more likely than not basis, that either of these defenses applies, then liability may be defeated under Washington’s strict liability statute for dog bites. RCW 16.08.040.
If you read the plain language of this statute, it appears that it may only apply to dog bites. Therefore, it could be argued, in the absence of injury caused by an actual bite, the statute does not apply. For example, if the dog jumped on an elderly person and knocked them down on the ground causing injury, but did not bite anyone, then Washington’s strict liability statute for dog bites may not apply; however, this does not mean the injured person does not have a case. As an alternative, they may allege common law negligence, or possibly another theory of liability, in order to pursue a claim and seek financial compensation.
Help for Washington Dog Bite Victims
If you or a loved one has been injured in a dog attack, you deserve to be compensated for your losses. Irresponsible pet owners can sometimes go to great lengths to avoid paying for a victim’s medical bills and keep their dangerous dog out of trouble. They may also be motivated to lie about what happened to avoid consequences for both themselves and their dogs.
These are just some of the reasons why it is important for dog bite victims to have an experienced personal injury lawyer fighting for them. While you heal, The Scott Law Firm can investigate the attack and take steps to collect the important evidence needed to prove your case and obtain maximum compensation. We also have a record of obtaining outstanding results for our clients, including victims of dog attacks.
Do not delay. Time is of the essence in dog bite cases. Contact The Scott Law Firm now to schedule your free dog bite case evaluation.