Bob’s dog was known to be hostile around children and had bitten them before. After Bob’s dog bit his neighbors’ child, the child’s parents sued Bob in court to recover damages for the child’s injuries. The trial court ruled against Bob and held him strictly liable for the child’s injuries, because under the one-dog bite rule, Bob had reason to know that his dog was dangerous.
one-bite rule
Definition
A rule that says that the owner of a domesticated animal (e.g., a dog) will be held strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal only if the owner knew or should have known about the animal’s dangerous or vicious propensities, which have been manifested in the past. The burden of proof is on the injured party to show that the animal owner possessed this knowledge. The “one-bite” rule originated in common law and has been rejected or modified by most states, either by statute or by case law, with regard to dogs.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
A legal rule, still in force in many states, that makes a dog owner legally responsible for injury caused by the dog only if the owner knew (or should have known) that the dog was likely to cause that kind of injury. The injured person must show that the owner had this knowledge.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:20 pm
“Accordingly, when the Act was initially passed in 1949 its purpose ‘was modest: to reduce the burden on dog-bite plaintiffs by eliminating the ‘one-bite rule’—the common law requirement that a plaintiff must plead and prove that a dog owner either knew or was negligent not to know that his dog had a propensity to injure people.’ Harris, 119 Ill.2d at 547. Thereafter, in 1973, the legislature amended the ‘dog-bite statute’ to permit recovery for injuries caused by ‘other animals.’ Harris, 119 Ill.2d at 547. Currently, to recover under the Act for an injury caused by a dog or other animal, a ‘plaintiff must prove four elements: “(1) an injury caused by an animal owned by the defendant; (2) lack of provocation; (3) the peaceable conduct of the injured person; and (4) the presence of the injured person in a place where he has a legal right to be.”’ Smith v. Lane, 358 Ill.App.3d 1126 (2005), quoting Meyer v. Naperville Manner, Inc., 262 Ill.Dec. 572 (1994). Courts have interpreted the Act ‘to provide coverage…[only to] plaintiffs who, by virtue of their relationship to the owner of an animal or lack of any such relationship, may not have any way of knowing or avoiding the risk the animal poses to them.” J. Greiman, Johnson v. Johnson, 386 Ill.App.3d 522, 539 (Ill. 2008)
