Colorado Dog Bite Laws Explained (Mixed Statute)
Mixed Statute
Colorado is a mixed-statute state: strict liability covers economic damages only, and only when the bite caused serious bodily injury — everything else runs through a separate negligence claim.
How Colorado Dog Bite Law Works
Colorado has a dog bite statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-124, and it does remove the need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. But it's a narrower tool than a strict-liability label implies, which is why this site classifies Colorado as a mixed-statute state rather than lumping it in with California or Florida. The statute applies only where the bite caused serious bodily injury or death, and it allows recovery of economic damages only — medical bills, lost wages, future care. Pain and suffering is not available under it.
That's why most serious Colorado claims are pleaded in two parts: the statutory count for economic losses, plus a common-law negligence or scienter count to reach everything else. Section 13-21-124(6)(a) expressly preserves those other theories, and leaving them out is one of the more expensive drafting mistakes in this area. Below is what the statute actually says, where its six exceptions bite, and what to do next — a licensed Colorado attorney can apply it to your specific facts.
The practical work in a Colorado case is heavier than in a pure strict liability state, and it starts earlier. Whether the injury clears the "serious bodily injury" threshold is a medical-records question that gets fought over. Whether a sign was posted, where, and whether it was legible is a photographs-and-witnesses question that decays within days. Whether the owner had notice of the dog's propensities — the fact that non-economic damages depend on — usually means tracking down prior complaints, neighbors, or earlier animal-control contacts. Very little of that gets easier with time.
Fees work the same way they do elsewhere: contingency, nothing upfront, commonly around a third of the recovery, paid only from what's recovered. If there's no recovery there's typically no fee, which is why a free consultation is worth having even on a claim you suspect is small.
How long a Colorado claim takes turns mostly on whether the two-count structure is contested. A statutory-only claim with clear serious injury and cooperative coverage can resolve in months. Add a fight over the owner's knowledge — which is what the non-economic damages depend on — and a year or more is ordinary. Settling before treatment reaches maximum medical improvement is the usual regret, and in Colorado it's compounded by the fact that the pain-and-suffering half of the claim is the part most often undervalued in an early offer.
Some bites don't need a lawyer. Minor injury, no lasting mark, insurer not disputing anything — that can be handled directly. What changes it here: any injury near the serious-bodily-injury line, a posted-sign defense being raised, a child victim, a denied claim, or an insurer offering to pay medical bills only while quietly treating the non-economic claim as though it doesn't exist.
The evidence that decides a Colorado claim is worth gathering regardless: photographs of the wound over time, photographs of the property including any signage and where it was posted, the animal-control report, the owner's insurance details, witnesses, and the full medical record. A consultation is largely an attorney reading that material and telling you whether the statutory count, the negligence count, or both are realistically available.
For low-dollar claims, Colorado small claims court handles disputes up to $7,500 without attorneys, in the county where the defendant lives or where the incident happened. It's the wrong venue for anything involving surgery, contested liability, or an insurer, but for a modest claim against an unresponsive owner it moves faster and costs less than a case that was never going to justify counsel. Larger claims go to county court up to $25,000, and district court above that.
| Liability rule | Mixed statute. Strict liability reaches economic damages only, and only where the bite caused serious bodily injury or death; non-economic damages require a separate negligence or scienter claim. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Civil actions against dog ownersC.R.S. § 13-21-124 |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the biteC.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a) |
| If the victim is a child | C.R.S. § 13-81-103 tolls the period until the child turns 18, with the two years running from there — but the tolling does not extend the Governmental Immunity Act notice deadline. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative negligence (50% bar)C.R.S. § 13-21-111 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | Yes. Colorado caps non-economic damages by statute, with the figure adjusted for inflation and periodically raised by the legislature. The applicable amount depends on when the claim accrued — confirm the current figure for your date of injury. |
| Does breed matter? | C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5(5)(b) bars local governments from regulating dangerous dogs by breed — but Denver's home-rule status has let its ordinance survive. After voters repealed the outright ban in November 2020, restricted breeds still need a provisional permit under Denver Revised Municipal Code § 8-67. |
| Dangerous dog law | C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5 (unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog) |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
Colorado’s statute is narrower than a strict-liability label suggests. It delivers one half of a typical claim automatically and leaves the other half to be proved the hard way — which is why an early offer that covers your medical bills exactly is often an offer that ignores half the case.
Economic damages
Strict liability — C.R.S. § 13-21-124(2)
- Medical bills
- Future medical care
- Lost wages
- Lost earning capacity
Burden: No proof of the owner’s knowledge required.
Only if the bite caused serious bodily injury or death (§ 18-1-901(3)(p)).
Non-economic damages
Negligence or scienter — preserved by § 13-21-124(6)(a)
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
Burden: Requires proving the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous.
Also subject to Colorado’s statutory cap on non-economic damages.
What follows from this: most serious Colorado claims are pleaded in two counts. Leaving the negligence count out is one of the more expensive drafting mistakes in this area, because the statutory count alone can never reach pain and suffering.
What C.R.S. § 13-21-124 Actually Provides
Colorado's statute is narrower than a strict-liability label suggests. It applies only where the bite caused serious bodily injury or death, and it allows recovery of economic damages only — medical bills, lost wages, future care. Pain and suffering is not available under it.
C.R.S. § 13-21-124(2) provides: "A person or a personal representative of a person who suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property shall be entitled to bring a civil action to recover economic damages against the dog owner regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog or the dog owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities."
The Two Phrases That Control Everything
“Serious bodily injury” borrows its meaning from Colorado's criminal code at § 18-1-901(3)(p) — broadly, a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, protracted impairment of a body part, or fractures. “Economic damages” pointedly excludes pain, suffering and disfigurement as categories of harm in themselves.
Two phrases in that sentence control almost everything. "Serious bodily injury" borrows its meaning from Colorado's criminal code at § 18-1-901(3)(p) — broadly, an injury involving a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a body part or organ, or fractures and second- or third-degree burns. A bite that required cleaning and a course of antibiotics generally will not clear it. And "economic damages" means the statute reaches medical costs, lost income, and future care, but not pain, suffering, emotional distress, or disfigurement as a category of harm in itself.
Why a Colorado Claim Needs Two Counts
The statutory count carries economic losses with no proof of the owner's knowledge. A parallel negligence or scienter count carries everything else. Subsection (6)(a) expressly preserves those other theories — the drafters acknowledging the statute was never meant to be the whole claim.
So a Colorado claim usually has two engines. The statutory count carries the economic losses without any need to prove the owner knew anything about the dog. A parallel common-law count — negligence, or the older scienter theory that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities — carries the non-economic damages. Subsection (6)(a) is explicit that nothing in the statute affects causes of action "predicated on other negligence, intentional tort, outrageous conduct, or other theories," which is the drafters acknowledging that the statute was never meant to be the whole claim.
The Six Statutory Exceptions
Subsection (5) defeats the statutory claim in six situations, broader than most states: unlawful presence, a posted sign on the owner's property, a peace officer or military dog, knowing provocation, certain animal professionals acting in their duties, and working farm, ranch, hunting or herding dogs.
Six exceptions in subsection (5) defeat the statutory claim outright, and they're broader than most states'. A dog owner isn't liable under the statute where the person was unlawfully on the property; where the person was on the owner's property and it was "clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating 'no trespassing' or 'beware of dog'"; where the dog was working with a peace officer or military personnel; where the person knowingly provoked the dog; where the person was a veterinary worker, groomer, humane agency staffer, professional handler, trainer, or show judge acting in that role; or where the dog was working as a hunting, herding, farm, ranch, or predator control dog.
A Posted Sign Is a Complete Defense
This surprises people. In Colorado a legible “Beware of Dog” or “No Trespassing” sign on the owner's property defeats the statutory claim outright — with no carve-out for children, unlike Florida. Photograph the property, not just the wound, because that evidence disappears within days.
The sign exception deserves particular attention, because it surprises people. In Colorado, a legible "Beware of Dog" sign posted on the owner's own property is a complete defense to the statutory claim — full stop, with no carve-out for children, unlike the comparable provision in Florida. It does not defeat a negligence claim, and it does not apply to a bite in a public place or on someone else's property. But it means the first thing worth photographing at a Colorado scene, after the wound, is the property itself: what signage existed, where it was, and whether it was actually visible from where you were standing.
The Working Dog Exemption After Robinson v. Legro
The Colorado Supreme Court read subsection (5)(f) narrowly in Robinson v. Legro, 2014 CO 40, holding that “under the control of” refers to control of the dog rather than the property — and that the exemption strips only strict liability, leaving other theories intact.
The working-dog exemption has been construed narrowly by the Colorado Supreme Court. In Robinson v. Legro, 2014 CO 40, 325 P.3d 1053, the court held that the phrase "under the control of" in subsection (5)(f) refers to control of the dog, not control of the property — and that the exemption strips only strict liability, leaving other theories intact. A later decision, Legro v. Robinson, 2015 COA 183, 369 P.3d 785, held that a federal grazing permit doesn't give the permit holder a property interest, so the dogs weren't working "on the property of" their owner. Both are worth knowing in any rural Colorado case involving working dogs.
Who Is “Lawfully on Property” in Colorado
Subsection (4) is generous: anyone performing a duty imposed by local, state or federal law, anyone on express or implied invitation, or anyone on their own property. Implied invitation covers a great deal, and the federal-duty language covers postal carriers directly.
Lawful presence is defined generously in subsection (4): a person is lawfully on property "if he or she is in the performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by local, state, or federal laws or regulations or if he or she is on property upon express or implied invitation of the owner or is on his or her own property." Implied invitation covers a great deal — a delivery to a front door, a neighbor approaching a walkway — and federal duty covers postal carriers directly.
Colorado's 50% Comparative Fault Bar
Your damages drop by your share of fault, and at 50% or more you recover nothing at all. That is meaningfully harsher than the pure comparative rules in California, Missouri and Arizona, where a majority-at-fault plaintiff still recovers something.
Colorado applies modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar under C.R.S. § 13-21-111. Your damages drop by your share of fault, and at 50% or more you recover nothing at all. That's meaningfully harsher than the pure comparative rules in California, Missouri, or Arizona, where a majority-at-fault plaintiff still recovers something. In a bite case, the fault argument almost always routes through provocation or through whether you had any business being where you were.
The Victim Can Ask the Court to Euthanize the Dog
Subsection (3) gives victims a lever most state statutes don't. Where it is alleged and proved that the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities, the court may on the victim's motion order the dog euthanized at the owner's expense. It is discretionary, not automatic.
Subsection (3) gives the victim a lever most state statutes don't. Where it's alleged and proved that the owner had knowledge or notice of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities, the court may — on a motion by the victim or the victim's personal representative — order the dog euthanized at the owner's expense. It's discretionary, not automatic, and it sits oddly inside a damages statute, but it exists and it's occasionally a factor in how a case is negotiated.
Criminal Liability Under § 18-9-204.5
Unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog scales from misdemeanor to felony with the severity of the harm, and a conviction involving serious bodily injury or death carries a mandatory confiscation and euthanasia order. The same statute contains Colorado's prohibition on breed-specific local regulation.
The criminal track runs separately under C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5, unlawful ownership of a dangerous dog. A dangerous dog is one that has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury on, or caused the death of, a person or domestic animal; has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person believe it might; or has been trained for animal fighting. Penalties scale from misdemeanor to felony with the severity of the harm, and a conviction involving serious bodily injury or death carries a mandatory confiscation and euthanasia order. That statute also contains Colorado's "ban on bans" — local governments may regulate dangerous dogs but not in a breed-specific way.
Why Denver Is the Exception on Breed
It is a home-rule question, not a loophole. Colorado's constitutional home-rule provisions have let Denver keep breed-specific regulation despite the state ban. After voters repealed the outright prohibition in November 2020, a breed-restricted permit under DRMC § 8-67 remains in force.
Except that Denver is the well-known exception, and it's a home-rule question rather than a loophole. Colorado's constitutional home-rule provisions have allowed Denver to maintain breed-specific regulation despite the state prohibition, and after voters repealed the outright pit bull ban in November 2020, what remains is a breed-restricted permit requirement under Denver Revised Municipal Code § 8-67 rather than a clean repeal. Aurora, Commerce City, and several other Front Range municipalities have their own histories here. Breed never affects the § 13-21-124 analysis either way — it's a separate municipal regulatory layer that can matter to a dog's fate and to the owner's citations, not to your damages.
Landlord Liability in Colorado
Runs on ordinary negligence, not the statute. A landlord who knew a tenant's dog was dangerous and had contractual power to require removal but did not act can be liable. A separate claim can arise from the premises alone — a latch that never worked, an unsecured stairwell.
Landlord liability in Colorado runs on ordinary negligence, not the statute. A landlord who actually knew a tenant's dog was dangerous and had the contractual power to require its removal, but didn't act, can be liable on that basis; prior tenant complaints in writing are the usual proof. A separate claim can arise from the premises rather than the animal — a latch that never worked, a shared stairwell left unsecured — and that one doesn't require showing the landlord knew anything about the particular dog.
Wrongful Death and Who May Sue
C.R.S. §§ 13-21-201 and 13-21-202 structure standing by year: the surviving spouse has the exclusive right in the first year after death, with children able to join in the second. That ordering is unusual enough that families frequently get it wrong without counsel.
A fatal attack gives the family a wrongful death claim under C.R.S. §§ 13-21-201 and 13-21-202, and § 13-21-124(2) reaches death directly as well. Colorado structures who may sue by year: the surviving spouse has the exclusive right in the first year after death, with children able to join in the second year, and specific provisions for designated beneficiaries and, where there's no spouse or child, the parents. That ordering is unusual enough that families frequently get it wrong without counsel.
Uninsured Owners, Route Workers, and Government Claims
Three practical points, and the last is the most dangerous. Postal and delivery workers are covered by subsection (4). But any claim touching a public entity requires written notice within 182 days under the Governmental Immunity Act — jurisdictional, and not tolled for minors.
If the owner has no coverage, the statute still applies but collection becomes the real question. Some owners carry standalone animal liability or umbrella coverage without a homeowners policy, which is worth identifying before anything else. Absent insurance, the claim is a direct action against personal assets, and the value of a judgment tracks what the defendant actually owns.
Postal carriers and delivery drivers are covered squarely by subsection (4)'s federal-duty language. A USPS carrier also has a FECA claim on the employer side, which runs independently and doesn't displace the civil claim against the owner. Private couriers have no such backstop. One Colorado wrinkle worth flagging for route workers: the posted-sign exception in subsection (5)(b) applies by its terms to a person "on property of the dog owner," so a delivery driver bitten at a door beneath a "Beware of Dog" sign may find the statutory count unavailable and the negligence count doing all the work.
Claims involving a government entity are expressly preserved from abrogation by subsection (6)(c), which keeps the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act intact. That matters because the CGIA requires written notice of claim within 182 days of discovering the injury — a jurisdictional prerequisite, not a technicality, and one that is not tolled for minors. A bite involving a municipal animal-control dog, a police K-9, or a dog on government property puts that deadline in play long before the ordinary two-year limitations period becomes relevant.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Colorado has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Colorado |
|---|---|---|
| Injury below "serious bodily injury" | Available | The threshold defense, and unique to Colorado among the states on this site. § 13-21-124(2) only reaches serious bodily injury or death, borrowing the definition from criminal code § 18-1-901(3)(p). A bite treated with antibiotics generally will not clear it. |
| "Beware of Dog" or "No Trespassing" sign | Available | § 13-21-124(5)(b) makes a clearly and conspicuously posted sign on the owner's property a complete defense to the statutory claim — with no carve-out for children, unlike Florida's equivalent. |
| Knowing provocation | Available | § 13-21-124(5)(d) defeats the statutory claim where the person knowingly provoked the dog. Note "knowingly" — a higher bar than Arizona's objective reasonable-person test. |
| Veterinary worker, groomer, trainer, handler or show judge | Available | § 13-21-124(5)(e) exempts these professionals acting in the course of their duties — a category most state statutes do not address at all. |
| Working farm, ranch, hunting or herding dog | Available | § 13-21-124(5)(f). Read narrowly in Robinson v. Legro, 2014 CO 40, 325 P.3d 1053, which held that "under the control of" refers to control of the dog, not the property — and that the exemption strips only strict liability, leaving other theories intact. |
| Trespassing | Available | § 13-21-124(5)(a) bars the claim where the person was unlawfully on public or private property. Subsection (4) defines lawful presence to include duties imposed by local, state or federal law and express or implied invitation. |
| One-bite / no prior viciousness | Not a defense | Not a defense to the statutory claim — but the owner's knowledge becomes central again for non-economic damages, which the statute does not cover. |
| Breed of the dog | Not a defense | Never part of the § 13-21-124 analysis. Municipal breed rules like Denver's § 8-67 permit affect the dog and the owner's citations, not your damages. |
Modified comparative negligence (50% bar). Damages drop by your share of fault, and at 50% or more you recover nothing. That is harsher than the pure comparative rules in California, Missouri and Arizona, where a majority-at-fault plaintiff still recovers something.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 50% or more, Colorado law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in Colorado
Colorado gives you two years from the date of the bite to file, under the general personal injury limitations statute at C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a), and that same two-year period applies to the statutory claim under § 13-21-124 and to a wrongful death claim measured from the date of death. For a minor, C.R.S. § 13-81-103 tolls the period until the child turns 18, with the two years running from there. The exception that causes real damage is governmental: because § 13-21-124(6)(c) preserves the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, any claim touching a public entity — a municipal animal-control dog, a police K-9, a bite on government property — requires written notice of claim within 182 days of discovering the injury, and that deadline is jurisdictional and is not tolled for minors. Missing it ends the claim regardless of how much of the two-year window is left. Colorado courts may also apply a discovery rule where the connection between the bite and a later-diagnosed injury genuinely wasn't apparent, though that's a narrow exception rather than something to rely on.
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 dog bite laws | 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 (this page) | 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. |
Colorado dog bite questions, answered
The questions Colorado readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Is Colorado really a strict liability state for dog bites?
Only partly, which is why this site classifies it as a mixed statute. C.R.S. § 13-21-124 imposes strict liability for economic damages, and only where the bite caused serious bodily injury or death. Pain, suffering and disfigurement are not recoverable under it — those require a separate negligence or scienter claim, which § 13-21-124(6)(a) expressly preserves.
What counts as "serious bodily injury" in Colorado?
The statute borrows the criminal definition at C.R.S. § 18-1-901(3)(p) — broadly, an injury involving a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a body part or organ, or fractures and second- or third-degree burns. A bite cleaned and treated with antibiotics generally will not qualify.
Does a "Beware of Dog" sign really defeat my claim in Colorado?
For the statutory claim, generally yes. Under § 13-21-124(5)(b) a dog owner is not liable where the person was on the owner's property and it was clearly and conspicuously marked with a "No Trespassing" or "Beware of Dog" sign. Colorado provides no exception for young children, unlike Florida. It does not defeat a negligence claim and does not apply to a bite in a public place.
Can I recover if I was 50% at fault?
No. Colorado applies modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, so a plaintiff who is 50% or more responsible recovers nothing. That is stricter than California, Missouri and Arizona, which all use pure comparative rules where a majority-at-fault plaintiff still recovers a reduced amount.
Are pit bulls still banned in Denver?
Not banned, but still restricted. Denver voters repealed the outright ban in November 2020, and what replaced it is a provisional breed-restricted permit under Denver Revised Municipal Code § 8-67, with microchipping, vaccination and a two-dog limit. Denver's home-rule status is why its ordinance survives the state prohibition on breed-specific regulation in C.R.S. § 18-9-204.5.
Can the court order the dog euthanized?
It can, and unusually, the victim can ask. Under § 13-21-124(3), where it is alleged and proved that the owner knew or had notice of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities, the court may on the victim's motion order the dog euthanized at the owner's expense. It is discretionary rather than automatic.
How long do I have to file in Colorado?
Two years from the date of the bite under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a). A minor's claim is tolled to age 18 under § 13-81-103. The exception that causes real damage is governmental: any claim touching a public entity requires written notice within 182 days under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, and that deadline is jurisdictional and is not tolled for children.
Key Takeaways for Colorado Dog Bite Victims
Colorado follows the Mixed Statute 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 Colorado settlement amounts or connect with a Colorado dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄C.R.S. § 13-21-124 — Colorado primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice