Alaska Dog Bite Laws Explained (One-Bite Rule)
One-Bite Rule
Alaska has no dog bite statute at all — and a cap on pain and suffering that pays a severe disfigurement claim on a completely different scale from an ordinary one.
How Alaska Dog Bite Law Works
Alaska never passed a dog bite statute. There is no Alaskan equivalent of Florida's § 767.04 or California's Civ. Code § 3342 sitting there to make an owner responsible the moment their dog bites someone. What Alaska has instead is common law, which means an injured person has to prove something — either that the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous, or that the owner simply failed to use reasonable care in controlling it.
That first theory is what people call the one-bite rule, and the label does more harm than good. It suggests every dog gets a free pass until it has bitten once, which is not the test. The test is what the owner had reason to know. A dog that had repeatedly lunged at people, growled at children, been kept muzzled, or prompted complaints from neighbours can support liability without ever having bitten anybody. And a dog that bit once years ago under a previous owner may not.
The second theory, ordinary negligence, is frequently the more practical route and is skipped surprisingly often. It says nothing about the dog's history. It asks whether this owner acted reasonably — whether the gate latched, whether the local leash rule was followed, whether a dog known to bolt was left unsecured beside a walkway. Because Alaska's animal control rules are municipal rather than statewide, establishing which ordinance applied where the attack happened is one of the first things worth doing.
Where Alaska diverges most sharply from the rest of the country, though, is on damages. AS 09.17.010 caps non-economic damages — pain, suffering, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life — at $400,000 or the claimant's life expectancy in years times $8,000, whichever is greater. But where the damages are for severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement, the ceiling rises to $1,000,000 or life expectancy times $25,000. Dog attacks produce permanent scarring more often than almost any other injury category, so which side of that line a case falls on is usually the largest single question in it.
Economic damages are not capped at all. Medical treatment, reconstructive and revision surgery, rabies post-exposure prophylaxis, therapy, lost income and lost earning capacity are recoverable in full. In a case involving repeated surgery, the uncapped economic side can comfortably exceed the capped non-economic side, which is worth understanding before treating the cap as a ceiling on the whole claim.
Alaska's fault rules are favourable by comparison with most of the states on this site. Under AS 09.17.060 the state applies pure comparative fault, so a claimant's own share of responsibility reduces the recovery proportionally but never eliminates it. A claimant found 60 percent at fault in Alaska still recovers 40 percent. In Arkansas the same claimant recovers nothing; in Alabama one percent of fault would end the case. Provocation arguments in Alaska are worth money, but they are not fatal.
The counterweight is AS 09.17.080, which abolished joint and several liability. Each defendant pays its own apportioned percentage and no more, so an uninsured dog owner's share does not shift onto a solvent landlord. Identifying every potentially responsible party early — the owner, whoever was handling the dog, a landlord who knew about it, a business that controlled the premises — matters more here than in a joint-liability state, because a party left off the verdict form is a slice of the recovery that disappears.
What an Alaska attorney is mostly doing, then, is three things: building the knowledge record before it evaporates, framing the injury accurately against the AS 09.17.010 disfigurement tier, and making sure the apportionment includes everyone who belongs in it. Fees run on the standard contingency model — nothing upfront, commonly around a third of the recovery, paid only from what is recovered, typically nothing owed if there is no recovery.
On timing, AS 09.10.070 gives two years from the injury. The minor-tolling rule in AS 09.10.140 is narrower than most out-of-state guidance suggests: it pauses the clock during minority but caps the extension at two years after the disability ends, so the outside limit is generally around a claimant's twentieth birthday rather than an open-ended wait. A separate subsection helps very young children — for an injury before the eighth birthday, the time before that birthday does not count toward the two years.
Not every Alaska bite needs a lawyer. Modest wound, prompt treatment, no permanent mark, insurer paying without argument — that is a claim most people can close on their own. What changes it: any permanent scarring, particularly on the face or hands, where the disfigurement tier of the cap is in play; a fight about what the owner knew; an attack in a rural or village setting where no animal control record exists; a child victim; an owner with no coverage; or any suggestion that the deadline has already been running for a while.
The evidence is the same either way. Photographs of the wound the same day and through healing, because scarring is judged on how it settles rather than how it looked initially. Photographs of the location, the fence, the gate and any signage. Names and numbers of witnesses, particularly anyone who had seen the dog behave badly before. The animal control report — in Anchorage, bites must be reported to Animal Care and Control on 343-8119, which also starts the rabies observation period. The owner's name, address and insurance details. And the complete medical record, including any specialist opinion on whether scarring will be permanent, which is the document the cap tier turns on.
For small claims, Alaska's district court handles matters up to $10,000 without requiring a lawyer, which suits a bite with modest bills and no lasting mark. Anything involving surgery, permanent scarring, a disputed knowledge question, or an apportionment fight belongs in superior court and generally belongs with counsel.
| Liability rule | No dog bite statute. Common-law scienter and ordinary negligence, with a two-tier statutory cap on non-economic damages. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | No civil dog bite statute — common law governs liabilityAS 09.17.010 (damages cap); AS 03.55.020 (vicious dog definition) |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the injuryAS 09.10.070 |
| If the victim is a child | Narrower than usually described. AS 09.10.140(a) tolls during minority but caps the extension at two years after the disability ends — generally the twentieth birthday, not an open window. Subsection (c) is more generous for the very young: for an injury before the eighth birthday, the time before that birthday does not count toward the two years. |
| Shared fault | Pure comparative fault — recovery is never barred by claimant faultAS 09.17.060; apportionment under AS 09.17.080 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | Capped by AS 09.17.010 at $400,000 or life expectancy in years times $8,000, whichever is greater — rising to $1,000,000 or life expectancy times $25,000 for severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement. Upheld in Evans ex rel. Kutch v. State, 56 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2002). |
| Does breed matter? | No statewide breed law and no statewide preemption. Animal regulation is municipal — Anchorage under Title 17 of its municipal code — and large areas outside organised boroughs have no restraint ordinance at all. |
| Dangerous dog law | AS 03.55.010 – 03.55.070 (killing vicious dogs; village council authority). No statewide dangerous-dog hearing procedure. |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
Alaska has no dog bite statute, so nothing about liability is automatic here. What Alaska does have is AS 09.17.010, which caps the non-economic half of a claim on two very different tiers. Which one applies is usually the largest question in a serious Alaska case — and it is decided by how a scar settles over months, not by how the wound looked on the day.
Ordinary tier
Non-economic damages generally
$400,000
or life expectancy in years × $8,000
Whichever of the two is greater. Applies where the injury did not produce severe permanent impairment or disfigurement.
Severe disfigurement tier
Severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement
$1,000,000
or life expectancy in years × $25,000
Whichever is greater. Serious dog attacks reach this tier more often than most injury categories, because permanent facial and hand scarring is the ordinary outcome.
Two things the cap does not reach. Economic damages — all medical treatment, reconstructive and revision surgery, therapy, lost income and lost earning capacity — are not capped at all, and in a case involving repeated surgery the uncapped half can be the larger one. And the cap says nothing about liability, which in Alaska still has to be proved through the owner’s knowledge or ordinary negligence. The cap survived constitutional challenge in Evans ex rel. Kutch v. State, 56 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2002), so the tiers themselves are settled; which tier your injury falls in is not.
Alaska Has No Dog Bite Statute — What a Claim Runs On Instead
Alaska never enacted a civil dog bite statute. A claim runs on common law: either scienter, meaning the owner knew or should have known the dog had a dangerous propensity, or ordinary negligence, meaning the owner failed to use reasonable care in controlling the animal.
The scienter route is what people mean by the one-bite rule, and the name is misleading in both directions. A dog does not get one free bite if the owner already had reason to know it was dangerous — repeated lunging, growling at children, a warning sign, a prior incident that stopped short of a bite. And a prior bite is not automatically decisive either; it is evidence of knowledge, and strong evidence, but it still has to be connected to this owner.
The negligence route is often the easier one to plead and is frequently overlooked. It does not depend on the dog's history at all. It asks whether this owner behaved reasonably: whether the gate latched, whether the leash law was observed, whether a dog with any known tendency to bolt was left unsecured near a walkway. Most Alaska claims worth bringing are pleaded on both theories rather than one.
Alaska should not be confused with Nevada, which also has no statute but whose Supreme Court expressly rejected the one-bite rule in 1971. Alaska has not done that. The scienter doctrine remains part of the state's common law, alongside negligence.
AS 03.55.020 and Why One Bite Puts an Alaska Owner on Notice
AS 03.55.020 states that any dog which, when unprovoked, has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious. The section exists to authorise killing a vicious dog running at large under AS 03.55.010, not to create civil liability — but its definition is useful evidence in a scienter case.
The distinction matters and is worth stating plainly, because it is easy to overclaim. AS 03.55.020 does not make a dog owner liable for anything. It sits inside a chapter about when a dog may lawfully be killed. Citing it as though it were Alaska's version of Florida's § 767.04 would be wrong.
What it does supply is a legislative statement that, in Alaska's own view, a single unprovoked bite makes a dog vicious. Where an owner's defense is that they had no reason to suspect anything after a first incident, the state's own definition is a fair answer. That is an evidentiary argument rather than a legal shortcut, but in a doctrine that turns entirely on what the owner should have known, evidentiary arguments are the case.
AS 03.55.030 adds a related provision for dogs that habitually annoy or are likely to bite livestock or wildlife, with a notice requirement before the dog may lawfully be killed. Records generated under either section — a complaint, a notice to an owner — are worth requesting.
The Negligence Route: Leash Ordinances, Restraint, and Ordinary Care
Because Alaska has no statute assigning liability, local ordinances do much of the work. A violation of a municipal leash or restraint rule is evidence of negligence and, depending on how the ordinance is framed, may support a negligence per se argument that shifts the focus off the dog's history entirely.
Alaska's animal control rules are almost entirely local. Anchorage regulates animals under Title 17 of the Anchorage Municipal Code; boroughs and smaller cities each have their own, and large areas of the state are outside any organised borough and have no leash rule at all. Which set applies is a function of exactly where the attack happened, and it is worth pinning down early rather than assuming a statewide rule exists.
Where an ordinance was violated, the analysis becomes a good deal simpler for a claimant, because the question moves from what the owner knew about this particular dog to whether the owner complied with a written rule. Where no ordinance applied, the negligence claim still exists but has to be built on ordinary reasonableness — what a careful owner in that setting would have done.
Landlord and premises claims run on the same reasoning. A property owner who knew a dangerous dog was on the premises and had the practical ability to require its removal, and did nothing, can be reached in negligence even though no Alaska statute names them.
Alaska Caps Pain and Suffering — and Disfigurement Sits in the Higher Tier
AS 09.17.010 caps non-economic damages at $400,000, or the claimant's life expectancy in years multiplied by $8,000, whichever is greater. Where the award is for severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement, the cap rises to $1,000,000 or life expectancy multiplied by $25,000, whichever is greater.
This is the rule that most shapes serious Alaska dog bite claims, and it is the reason permanent scarring is characterised carefully rather than casually. Dog attacks produce disfigurement more often than almost any other category of injury, and the difference between the two statutory tiers is not marginal — for a young claimant with a long life expectancy, the multiplier route can be worth substantially more than either fixed figure.
The cap reaches non-economic loss only: pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of consortium. Medical bills, future treatment, lost earnings and lost earning capacity are economic damages and are not capped at all. In a case involving repeated reconstructive surgery, the economic side can be the larger figure.
Alaska's cap survived constitutional challenge in Evans ex rel. Kutch v. State, 56 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2002), so it is settled law rather than a live question. Whether a particular injury qualifies as severe permanent disfigurement, on the other hand, is very much a live question, and it is usually the most valuable one in the case.
Pure Comparative Fault and Alaska's Several-Only Apportionment
Alaska applies pure comparative fault under AS 09.17.060: a claimant's own share of fault reduces the award proportionally but never bars it, even at 90 percent. AS 09.17.080 then makes each defendant severally liable for its own percentage only — Alaska abolished joint and several liability.
The pure comparative rule is favourable and unusual. In Arkansas or Colorado a claimant found half at fault recovers nothing; in Alabama one percent of fault ends the case. In Alaska, a claimant found 60 percent at fault still recovers 40 percent of the damages. Provocation and trespass arguments are therefore worth arguing about, but they discount an Alaska claim rather than destroying it.
Several liability cuts the other way. Where a dog owner and a landlord are both at fault, each pays only its own apportioned share, and an insolvent or uninsured dog owner's share does not shift onto the solvent landlord. That makes identifying every potentially responsible party early more consequential in Alaska than in a joint-liability state, because a party left off the verdict form is a percentage of the recovery that simply disappears.
The fault-allocation exercise under AS 09.17.080 also takes in parties who were never sued, which is a defense tactic worth anticipating rather than discovering at trial.
Two Years to File, and Why a Child's Claim May Not Wait Until Eighteen
AS 09.10.070 gives two years from the date of the injury. For minors, AS 09.10.140 tolls the period during minority but expressly caps the extension: the action may not be brought more than two years after the disability ends, so the practical outside limit is usually a claimant's twentieth birthday.
That cap is the detail most competing Alaska pages get wrong, because the general statement — the clock is paused while the claimant is a minor — is true as far as it goes and then stops short of the limiting sentence that follows it. Alaska does not give a child an indefinite window, and it does not restart a full period at 18. It gives two years after the disability ceases.
Subsection (c) adds a separate rule for very young children: in a personal injury action brought by someone who was under eight at the time of the injury, the time before the eighth birthday does not count toward the two-year period. A child bitten at three therefore has, at minimum, until around the tenth birthday, with the general minority provision available beyond that.
Claims against government entities are a separate track again. Actions against the State of Alaska run through AS 09.50.250 and its procedural requirements, and municipalities including Anchorage impose their own notice-of-claim rules by charter or code. A bite involving a police dog, a bite on public property, or a dog owned by a public employee should be reviewed against those rules within weeks.
Loose Dogs Outside the Boroughs: Village Councils and Rural Attacks
Much of Alaska sits outside any organised borough, where no municipal animal control department exists. AS 03.55.070 gives an elected village council in an unincorporated village outside an organised borough authority to control dogs within the village and for twenty miles around it.
This is a genuinely Alaskan problem with no analogue in the Lower 48. Loose and semi-owned dogs are a recognised public health issue in rural and village Alaska, and a serious attack there can happen where there is no animal control officer to call, no leash ordinance to point to, and sometimes no clear owner to identify. The evidentiary base a claim normally rests on may simply not be generated.
Where that is the situation, the practical substitutes are a clinic or health aide record documenting the injury and its treatment, statements taken from witnesses while memories are fresh, any village council record of the dog, and photographs. The claim itself still runs on the same negligence and scienter theories; what changes is that the claimant has to build the record rather than request it.
Where the twenty-mile jurisdictional radius of two villages would overlap, § 03.55.070(b) splits it at the midpoint — a provision that occasionally matters when working out which council, if any, had authority over the dog.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Alaska has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Alaska |
|---|---|---|
| Owner had no knowledge of any dangerous propensity | Available | Defeats the scienter claim entirely, since knowledge is an element the claimant must prove. It does not defeat a parallel negligence claim, which is why most Alaska cases are pleaded on both. |
| No leash ordinance applied at that location | Limited | Alaska regulates animals locally, and much of the state sits outside any organised borough. Where no ordinance applied, the negligence route loses its clearest benchmark and has to be built on ordinary reasonableness instead. |
| Provocation | Limited | Reduces rather than defeats. Under AS 09.17.060 pure comparative fault applies, so provocation cuts the award by the claimant’s percentage and never bars it — unusually favourable compared with most states on this site. |
| Non-economic damages cap | Available | Not a liability defense but a hard ceiling. AS 09.17.010 limits pain and suffering, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life, and the fight is usually over which of the statute’s two tiers applies. |
| Apportionment to absent parties | Available | AS 09.17.080 allows fault to be allocated to parties who were never sued, and several liability means that allocated share is simply not recoverable. A defense tactic worth anticipating before the case is framed. |
| Trespass | Limited | Relevant to whether the owner owed a duty and to the fault allocation, but not a categorical bar — there is no statute conditioning liability on lawful presence, because there is no statute. |
Pure comparative fault — recovery is never barred by claimant fault. A claimant found 60 percent at fault still recovers 40 percent. The offsetting rule is AS 09.17.080: Alaska abolished joint and several liability, so each defendant pays only its own apportioned share and an uninsured party’s percentage does not shift to a solvent one.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — and even a majority-fault finding would reduce the award rather than eliminate it.
Statute of Limitations in Alaska
Alaska allows two years from the date of the injury under AS 09.10.070 — the same as Alabama, Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania, shorter than Arkansas's three years and Missouri's five, longer than Tennessee's one. For minors, AS 09.10.140 is narrower than it is usually described. The section does toll the period during minority, but it then caps the extension expressly: the action may not be brought more than two years after the disability ends. In practice that means a claimant injured as a teenager generally has until around their twentieth birthday, not an open-ended window and not a fresh two-year period stacked on some later date. Subsection (c) adds a separate and more generous rule for very young children — in a personal injury action by someone who was under eight when injured, the time before the eighth birthday does not count toward the two-year period, so a child bitten at three has at least until around their tenth birthday. Guidance written for states that toll fully to 18 will mislead an Alaska family on both points, and the dates are worth checking with an Alaska attorney rather than assuming. Government defendants run on a separate track: claims against the State of Alaska proceed under AS 09.50.250 and its procedural requirements, and municipalities including Anchorage impose their own notice-of-claim rules by charter or code, which are typically far shorter than two years. A bite by a police dog, a bite on public property, or a dog owned by a public employee acting within the scope of employment should be reviewed against those rules within weeks of the attack.
Dog bite law varies more between states than most people expect — the same attack can be a straightforward claim in one state and a difficult one across a state line.
| State | Rule | Statute | Deadline | Shared fault | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ala. Code § 3-6-1 | 2 years | Contributory (any fault bars) | The statute reaches bites on the owner’s property only, and § 3-6-3 cuts the claim to actual expenses where the owner knew nothing about the dog. |
| Alaska (this page) | One-bite / negligence | No statute (AS 09.17.010 caps damages) | 2 years | Pure comparative | Non-economic damages capped at $400,000 — or $1,000,000 where the injury is severe permanent disfigurement. |
| Arizona dog bite laws | Strict liability | A.R.S. § 11-1025 | 1 year (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Pure comparative | Shortest deadline in the country for the statutory claim; breed cannot be considered by any legal decision-maker. |
| Arkansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute (Ark. Code § 5-62-125 criminal) | 3 years | Modified (50% bar) | Recovery is barred at exactly 50 percent fault, not 51 — and a minor’s window runs three years past majority. |
| California dog bite laws | Strict liability | Civ. Code § 3342 | 2 years | Pure comparative | Minor's claim tolled until age 18; cities cannot ban dogs by breed. |
| Colorado dog bite laws | Mixed statute | C.R.S. § 13-21-124 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Strict liability reaches economic damages only, and only on serious bodily injury. A posted "Beware of Dog" sign is a complete defense. |
| Connecticut dog bite laws | Strict liability | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 | 3 years (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers any damage a dog does, not just bites. A child under seven is presumed not to have trespassed or teased — the burden shifts to the defendant. |
| Delaware dog bite laws | Strict liability | 16 Del. C. § 3053F | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Animal control is run statewide by Delaware Animal Services rather than by each city — the only state on this site with a single centralised agency. |
| District of Columbia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | D.C. Code §§ 8-1808, 8-1812 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | Letting a dog run at large is evidence of negligence, and lack of knowledge is no excuse — but any contributory fault at all still defeats the claim. |
| Florida dog bite laws | Strict liability | Fla. Stat. § 767.04 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | A posted "Bad Dog" sign is a complete defense — except against a child under 6. |
| Georgia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | A violated local leash ordinance is by itself sufficient proof of vicious propensity. Fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Hawaii dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The statute removes the scienter requirement but not the need to prove unreasonable conduct — except for animals dangerous by species or nature, where liability is absolute. |
| Idaho dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute; Idaho Code § 25-2805 (at large) | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No strict liability statute. Recovery runs on scienter or negligence, and the fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Illinois dog bite laws | Strict liability | 510 ILCS 5/16 | 2 years (1 year vs. a local public entity) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers attacks and attempted attacks with no bite, and "owner" includes anyone who keeps, harbors or has custody of the dog. |
| Indiana dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability applies ONLY to people performing a duty imposed by law — mail carriers, meter readers, police. Everyone else gets the one-bite rule. |
| Iowa dog bite laws | Strict liability | Iowa Code § 351.28 | 2 years | Contributory negligence is not a defense | Unusually claimant-friendly: the only statutory defenses are that the victim was committing an unlawful act, or that the dog had rabies. |
| Kansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law scienter | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No dog bite statute, and the fault bar sits at 50%. Local leash ordinances do most of the practical work in establishing negligence. |
| Kentucky dog bite laws | Strict liability | KRS 258.235(4) | 1 year | Pure comparative | The statutory definition of "owner" is broad enough to make a landlord strictly liable — Maupin v. Tankersley (Ky. 2018). Only one year to file. |
| Louisiana dog bite laws | Strict liability | La. Civ. Code art. 2321 | 2 years (1 year before 1 July 2024) | Pure comparative | A civil-law jurisdiction. Prescription doubled from one year to two on 1 July 2024, and the change applies only to injuries arising after that date. |
| Maine dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 7 M.R.S. § 3961 | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | The longest filing deadline in the country at six years — but strict liability applies only where the dog injured you OFF the owner's premises. |
| Maryland dog bite laws | Strict liability (at large) + presumption | Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 | 3 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Breed-neutral since a 2014 legislative reversal of Tracey v. Solesky — but pure contributory negligence stacked on genuine strict liability means any claimant fault, even 1%, can still zero out the claim. |
| Massachusetts dog bite laws | Strict liability (owners and keepers) | MGL c. 140, § 155 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability runs against anyone temporarily caring for the dog — boarding kennels, dog walkers, pet sitters — on the same strict liability terms as the owner. Double damages are mandatory (not discretionary) where the owner had prior knowledge. |
| Michigan dog bite laws | Strict liability | MCL 287.351 | 3 years | Modified — bars non-economic damages only | Over 50% fault removes pain and suffering but not medical bills. Provocation is judged objectively, so an accidental act can count. |
| Minnesota dog bite laws | Strict liability | Minn. Stat. § 347.22 | 6 years | Modified (51% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest of any strict liability state on this site. The statute covers any "attack or injury," not only bites, giving full protection to victims knocked down or injured by large dogs without being bitten. |
| Mississippi dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Miss. Code § 15-1-49 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Mississippi is one of very few states with no civil dog bite statute — claims run on common law, requiring proof the owner knew the dog was dangerous before the attack. Mississippi's pure comparative fault rule means even a plaintiff with significant fault recovers a proportional share of damages. |
| Missouri dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSMo § 273.036 | 5 years | Pure comparative | Longest filing window on this list; minor's claim tolled to 21. |
| Montana dog bite laws | Strict liability | Mont. Code § 27-1-715 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Rural insurance market means coverage confirmation is a critical early investigation step — uninsured homeowners rates are higher in Montana than in most urban strict liability states on this site. |
| Nebraska dog bite laws | Strict liability | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state. § 54-601 covers "killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing" — broader than bite-only statutes. |
| Nevada dog bite laws | Negligence (no statute) | No dog bite statute — Glass v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 87 Nev. 321 (1971) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The only state here with no dog bite statute at all. Nevada rejected the one-bite rule in 1971 — claims run on ordinary negligence. |
| New Hampshire dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSA 466:19 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Defenses are statutory and narrow — only trespass and deliberate provocation (teasing, tormenting, abusing the dog) are complete defenses. Government entity claims require written notice within 60 days for municipal defendants under RSA 507-B:7. |
| New Jersey dog bite laws | Strict liability | N.J. Stat. § 4:19-16 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | One of the oldest strict liability statutes in the country (enacted 1933). Harboring liability extends to landlords and employers who knowingly permit a dangerous dog — both faces of the same claim, not alternatives. |
| New Mexico dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NMSA § 37-1-8 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Government entity notice deadline is only 90 days under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMSA § 41-4-16) — the shortest of any state on this site. Claims run on common law with no civil dog bite statute. |
| New York dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Strict liability covers medical and veterinary costs only. Flanders v. Goodfellow (Apr 2025) restored ordinary negligence claims after 19 years. |
| North Carolina dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.C.G.S. §§ 67-4.4, 67-12 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | The harshest fault rule in the country. Any contributory negligence at all, however slight, defeats the entire claim. |
| North Dakota dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NDCC 28-01-16(5) (no civil bite statute) | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest personal injury window of any state on this site. Modified 50% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault recovers nothing — stricter than the 51% bar in neighboring Wyoming and New Hampshire. |
| Ohio dog bite laws | Strict liability | Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Liability reaches the owner, keeper AND harborer. Avery's Law (Mar 2026) added a $100,000 insurance mandate for dangerous dogs. |
| Oklahoma dog bite laws | Strict liability | 4 O.S. § 42.1 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Oklahoma's comparative fault bar falls at 50% — a plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing. This is one percentage point more restrictive than Oregon and New Jersey, where 50% plaintiff fault still allows a half-damages recovery. |
| Oregon dog bite laws | Strict liability | ORS 31.360 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Oregon bans breed-specific ordinances statewide under ORS 609.205 — no city or county may restrict or regulate dogs by breed. The liability analysis under ORS 31.360 is fully breed-neutral. |
| Pennsylvania dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 3 P.S. § 459-502 (Dog Law) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability covers medical costs only. Pain and suffering requires proving a "severe injury" or the dog's dangerous propensities. |
| Rhode Island dog bite laws | Strict liability | RIGL § 4-13-16 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Pure comparative fault — recovery is never barred by victim fault, regardless of the percentage. A plaintiff found 90% at fault still recovers 10% of their damages. The most plaintiff-favorable comparative fault system in New England. |
| South Carolina dog bite laws | Strict liability | S.C. Code § 47-3-110 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability is express in the statute — liability extends to any person having the dog "in their care or keeping," making dog walkers and boarding facilities directly liable on the same strict liability terms as the registered owner. |
| South Dakota dog bite laws | Strict liability | SDCL § 40-34-1 | 3 years | Slight/gross doctrine | Extends strict liability to "keepers and harborers" — not just the registered owner. Uses unique "slight/gross" comparative negligence rather than standard percentage-based fault. Government entity claims require 180-day written notice under SDCL § 3-21-2. |
| Tennessee dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 | 1 year | Modified (50% bar) | The only state with a "residential exclusion" — strict liability drops away if the bite happened on the owner's own residential or farm property. |
| Texas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No statute — Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | No dog bite statute. Recovery requires proving the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities, or ordinary negligent handling. |
| Utah dog bite laws | Strict liability | Utah Code § 18-1-1 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state in the country. Utah's statute also has no express lawful-presence language, making the reach of strict liability potentially broader than states with that textual limitation. |
| Vermont dog bite laws | Strict liability | 20 V.S.A. § 3461 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Statute requires victim to have been "peaceably conducting himself or herself" in a lawful location — courts interpret this narrowly to exclude only deliberate provocateurs, not ordinary people in normal activity. Vermont's rural character means farm policies rather than homeowners insurance are common in agricultural-area cases. |
| Virginia dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law one-bite rule | 2 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Two compounding disadvantages for victims: no strict liability statute (must prove owner's prior knowledge) plus pure contributory negligence (any fault bars entirely). Strict liability only available after a prior "dangerous dog" designation under § 3.2-6553. |
| Washington dog bite laws | Strict liability | RCW 16.08.040 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Broad strict liability, but provocation is a COMPLETE defense — and a fenced or posted property removes the implied consent that makes you lawfully present. |
| West Virginia dog bite laws | Strict liability | W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Harboring theory expressly extends strict liability to landlords who knowingly allowed a dangerous dog on their rental property — a second defendant category not available in most strict liability states. |
| Wisconsin dog bite laws | Strict liability | Wis. Stat. § 174.02 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Double damages are mandatory by statute — not discretionary — whenever the owner was notified or knew the dog had previously injured someone. The entire damages award doubles automatically once prior knowledge is established. |
| Wyoming dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105 (no civil bite statute) | 4 years | Modified (51% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — the longest of any one-bite rule state on this site. Modified 51% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault still recovers half their damages, unlike neighboring one-bite states. |
Alaska dog bite questions, answered
The questions Alaska readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Does Alaska have a dog bite statute?
No. Alaska never enacted one, so there is nothing equivalent to Florida’s § 767.04 or California’s Civ. Code § 3342. A claim runs on common-law scienter — proving the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous — or on ordinary negligence. Most claims worth bringing are pleaded on both, because the two theories fail for different reasons.
Does Alaska follow the one-bite rule?
Broadly yes, but the label oversells the free bite. Liability turns on notice, not on a bite count: an owner whose dog had lunged, snapped or generated complaints can be liable without any prior bite. Alaska should not be confused with Nevada, which also has no statute but whose Supreme Court expressly rejected the one-bite rule in 1971. Alaska has not done that.
Is there a cap on dog bite damages in Alaska?
On the non-economic half, yes. AS 09.17.010 caps pain and suffering, disfigurement and loss of enjoyment of life at $400,000 or the claimant’s life expectancy in years times $8,000, whichever is greater — rising to $1,000,000 or life expectancy times $25,000 where the damages are for severe permanent physical impairment or severe disfigurement. Economic damages, including all medical treatment and lost earnings, are not capped.
What does AS 03.55.020 actually do?
It defines a dog that has bitten or attacked a human being unprovoked as vicious — but for the purpose of AS 03.55.010, which authorises killing a vicious dog running at large. It is not a civil liability provision and should not be cited as one. Its practical use in a claim is evidentiary: it is the state’s own statement that one unprovoked bite makes a dog vicious, which answers an owner who says they had no reason to suspect anything.
Can I still recover in Alaska if I was partly at fault?
Yes. AS 09.17.060 applies pure comparative fault, so your share of responsibility reduces the award proportionally but never bars it — even at 90 percent. That is materially more favourable than Arkansas, where 50 percent fault bars recovery entirely, or Alabama, where any fault at all does.
If a landlord and a dog owner are both at fault, who pays?
Each pays only their own apportioned share. AS 09.17.080 abolished joint and several liability in Alaska, so an uninsured dog owner’s percentage does not transfer to a solvent landlord’s insurer. That makes identifying and naming every responsible party before the case is framed unusually consequential here.
Is a child’s dog bite claim in Alaska paused until they turn 18?
Not quite, and this is where out-of-state guidance misleads Alaska families. AS 09.10.140(a) tolls the period during minority but then caps the extension at two years after the disability ends, so the practical outside limit is usually the twentieth birthday. Subsection (c) is separate and more generous: for an injury suffered before the eighth birthday, the time before that birthday does not count at all.
What if the attack happened in a village with no animal control?
Much of Alaska sits outside any organised borough, and AS 03.55.070 gives an elected village council in an unincorporated village authority to control dogs within the village and for twenty miles around it. Where no department exists to take a report, the claim still runs on the same negligence and scienter theories — but the claimant has to build the record themselves, through clinic or health aide notes, witness statements taken early, any village council record, and photographs.
Key Takeaways for Alaska Dog Bite Victims
Alaska follows the One-Bite Rule standard — that determines whether you need to prove the owner's prior knowledge or can hold them liable automatically. Understanding which standard applies is the first step in knowing whether you have a viable claim.
Your filing deadline is fixed by state law. Missing it permanently closes your case, no matter how strong the evidence is. Start the clock from the date of the bite.
Document everything from day one — photos of the injury, medical records, the dog owner's name, and any witness contact details. That documentation is the single most controllable factor in how much you ultimately recover.
Ready to understand what your case may be worth? See Alaska settlement amounts or connect with a Alaska dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄Alaska one-bite rule (common law) — Alaska primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice