Florida Dog Bite Laws Explained (Strict Liability)
Strict Liability
Florida is among the strongest strict liability states for dog bite victims — with one large statutory exception: a properly posted "Bad Dog" sign, unless the person bitten is under six.
How Florida Dog Bite Law Works
Florida's dog bite statute, Fla. Stat. § 767.04, makes the owner liable for a bite regardless of the dog's history or what the owner knew about it. There's no one-bite defense. The statute also names mail carriers and other people performing legal duties directly in its text, which removes an argument that gets litigated in other states.
It comes with a defense that catches people off guard, though. An owner who displayed an easily readable "Bad Dog" sign in a prominent place on the premises is generally not liable — unless the person bitten was under six years old, or the injury was caused by the owner's own negligent act or omission. Almost no other state has anything comparable. What follows is what the statute says, how the sign defense actually works, how Florida's 2023 tort reform changed the filing deadline, and what to do next; a licensed Florida attorney can apply it to your facts.
Where a Florida attorney adds value is usually in three places. Establishing early whether a sign existed, where, and whether it was legible from where you were — evidence that vanishes fast and that an insurer will assert with or without proof. Handling the comparative negligence argument, which Florida wrote directly into the bite statute and then complicated further in 2023. And calculating what an unhealed injury will cost rather than settling against current bills.
Fees are contingency across the board: nothing upfront, commonly around a third of the recovery, paid only out of what's recovered, and typically nothing owed if there's no recovery. Florida also requires attorneys to provide a written contingency fee contract with a client's right to cancel within three business days, so there's a built-in window to reconsider after signing.
Timelines vary with how contested liability is and how far treatment has progressed. A clear-liability bite with finished treatment can resolve in a few months; a case with a sign defense, a comparative fault fight, or ongoing surgical care routinely runs past a year. Since March 2023 the filing window has been two years rather than four, which has meaningfully compressed how long a Florida claim can sit in negotiation before suit has to be filed.
Not every bite needs representation. A minor wound, prompt treatment, no lasting mark, and an insurer that isn't fighting can be handled directly. What tends to change it: surgery or stitches, visible scarring, a child victim, a denied claim, an owner asserting a posted sign, or any injury to a child where a parent is available to sue — because Florida's minor tolling rule is far narrower than most people assume, and a child's claim can expire on the ordinary two-year schedule.
The evidence that matters is consistent: photos of the wound immediately and through healing, photos of the property and any signage, the animal services report, the owner's name and insurance information, witness contacts, and the complete medical file. A free consultation is mostly an attorney reading that and telling you honestly what it supports.
For small claims, Florida county court handles claims up to $8,000 in the small claims division under the simplified small claims rules, and up to $50,000 in county court generally, with circuit court above that. Small claims suits pretrial conferences quickly and doesn't require a lawyer, but it's a poor fit for surgical injuries, disputed liability, or anything where an insurer has counsel involved.
| Liability rule | Strict liability by statute, subject to a posted-sign defense and a statutory comparative-negligence reduction. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Dog owner's liability for damages to persons bittenFla. Stat. § 767.04 |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the biteFla. Stat. § 95.11 |
| If the victim is a child | Narrow. Under § 95.051 a minor's claim is tolled only where no parent or guardian is available to sue, where an available parent's interest conflicts with the child's, or where a parent has been adjudicated incapacitated — with most extensions capped at seven years by § 95.051(2). If a parent can sue, the ordinary two-year clock runs from the bite. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative negligence (51% bar)Fla. Stat. § 768.81, as amended by HB 837 (2023) |
| Cap on pain & suffering | No general cap on non-economic damages in dog bite claims. |
| Does breed matter? | Breed-specific local ordinances were preempted statewide effective October 1, 2023, ending Miami-Dade County's 34-year pit bull ban. Breed was never part of the § 767.04 analysis. |
| Dangerous dog law | Fla. Stat. § 767.12, as amended by the Pam Rock Act (CS/HB 593, eff. July 1, 2025) |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
What Does Florida's Dog Bite Statute Actually Say?
Florida is a strict liability state. Under Fla. Stat. § 767.04, a dog's owner is liable for a bite that happens in a public place, or while the person bitten is lawfully on private property — including the owner's own property — regardless of whether the dog had ever bitten anyone before.
Fla. Stat. § 767.04 provides: "The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness."
The same section defines lawful presence with unusual specificity: a person is lawfully on the owner's private property "when the person is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the person is on such property upon invitation, expressed or implied, of the owner." Florida is one of the few states whose bite statute names postal regulations outright, which forecloses an argument that carriers in other states occasionally have to litigate.
The “Bad Dog” Sign Defense — Florida's Biggest Exception
Often it does. An owner who displayed an easily readable “Bad Dog” sign in a prominent place is generally not liable under § 767.04. Two exceptions matter: the defense never applies to a person under six years old, and it does not protect an owner whose own negligence caused the injury.
Then comes the exception that defines Florida practice. The statute continues: "However, the owner is not liable, except as to a person under the age of 6, or unless the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner, if at the time of any such injury the owner had displayed in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words 'Bad Dog.'" Three things follow. The sign must have been displayed at the time of the injury, in a prominent place, and be easily readable — assertions an owner makes freely and can rarely document after the fact. It does not protect an owner whose own negligence caused the injury, so a loose dog or a broken gate can defeat it. And it never applies to a child under six, which makes the victim's age a threshold fact in any Florida case involving a young child.
Because the defense turns entirely on physical evidence at the scene, photographs of the property taken in the first days do more work in a Florida case than in most states. A sign at a side gate isn't necessarily prominent at a front door. A weathered, obscured, or newly installed sign is contestable. So is whether it said "Bad Dog" or something else — the statute specifies those words, and courts have not treated the requirement as merely decorative.
Can You Still Recover If You Were Partly at Fault?
In most cases yes, but with a ceiling. Section 767.04 reduces the owner's liability by the percentage of the bitten person's own negligence. Since 2023, Fla. Stat. § 768.81 also bars recovery entirely for a plaintiff found more than 50% at fault, so provocation disputes carry real risk.
Comparative negligence is written into the bite statute itself: "any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident." On its face that's a pure comparative reduction. But Florida's 2023 tort reform, HB 837, amended Fla. Stat. § 768.81 to adopt modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar for most negligence actions, meaning a plaintiff more than half at fault recovers nothing. How the general bar interacts with the bite statute's own language is still being worked through in Florida courts, and the prudent assumption in any contested case is that majority fault is a genuine risk to the entire recovery.
How Long Do You Have to File a Dog Bite Claim in Florida?
Two years from the date of the bite, for bites on or after March 24, 2023, under Fla. Stat. § 95.11 as amended by HB 837. The window was four years before that date. A child's claim is usually not paused until age 18 the way it is in California.
The filing deadline changed too, and this trips up more Florida claims than any other single rule. For bites on or after March 24, 2023, HB 837 cut the negligence limitations period from four years to two under Fla. Stat. § 95.11. A separate argument exists that a claim brought squarely under § 767.04 is an action founded on statutory liability and keeps the four-year period at § 95.11(3)(f); some practitioners rely on it, and it has not been definitively settled for dog bite claims. Treating two years as the operative deadline is the only safe course, because being right about the four-year theory is worth nothing if a court disagrees after the two years have run.
Florida's rule for children is the trap that most out-of-state guidance gets wrong. In California a minor's claim is tolled to 18; in Missouri to 21. Florida is not like that. Under Fla. Stat. § 95.051, minority tolls the limitations period only in narrow circumstances — where no parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem is available to bring the action, where an available parent's or guardian's interest conflicts with the child's, or where a parent or guardian has been adjudicated incapacitated — and § 95.051(2) caps most extensions at seven years from accrual regardless. If a parent is available to sue on the child's behalf, the ordinary two-year clock runs from the date of the bite. A family that waits for a child to grow up before pursuing a Florida claim will usually find it gone.
The Pam Rock Act and Florida's Dangerous Dog Rules
The Pam Rock Act took effect July 1, 2025. Owners of dogs classified dangerous must carry at least $100,000 in liability coverage for that dog, and must microchip, sterilize and securely confine it. For a victim, that mandatory policy can be a source of coverage separate from any homeowners policy.
Florida's dangerous dog framework changed substantially with the Pam Rock Act, CS/HB 593, signed May 21, 2025 and effective July 1, 2025. Named for Pamela Rock, a postal carrier killed by a pack of dogs in Interlachen in August 2022, it tightened classification and owner obligations. Owners of dogs classified as dangerous must carry at least $100,000 in liability coverage specifically for injury or damage caused by the dog, must have the dog microchipped and sterilized, and must securely confine it. Classification thresholds were tied to bite severity measured on the Dunbar bite scale rather than left to unstructured discretion. The law is breed-neutral by design — it turns on behavior.
The $100,000 insurance mandate is worth understanding from a victim's side, not just an owner's. Where a dog was already classified dangerous before it bit you, there may be a dedicated policy that exists precisely because of the classification — a coverage source separate from any homeowners policy, and one worth identifying early. Where the owner ignored the requirement, that non-compliance is itself evidence of a negligent act or omission, which is one of the routes around the "Bad Dog" sign defense.
Classification and confiscation run through the local animal control authority under Fla. Stat. § 767.12, with written notice to the owner and a right to request a hearing within a set period. That administrative process is independent of your civil claim and doesn't require you to have counsel, but the investigative file it generates — bite severity findings, prior complaints, the owner's statements — frequently becomes the strongest evidence available in the civil case.
Does the Dog's Breed Matter in a Florida Claim?
No. Breed has never been part of the liability analysis under § 767.04, and since October 1, 2023 Florida has preempted breed-specific local ordinances statewide — which ended Miami-Dade County's pit bull ban after 34 years and stopped breed-based exclusions from public housing.
Breed no longer varies by county. A 2023 state law effective October 1, 2023 barred Florida local governments from enacting or enforcing breed-specific regulations, which ended Miami-Dade County's ban on pit bulls after 34 years — it had been in place since 1989 — and stopped breed-based exclusions from public housing. Breed was never part of the § 767.04 analysis in the first place; what changed is that a dog's breed no longer determines whether it could lawfully be in a given county at all.
What If the Dog Injured You Without Biting?
A bite claim runs under § 767.04, but injuries without a bite aren't left out. Fla. Stat. § 767.01 makes owners liable for damage their dogs do more broadly — the route for a knockdown, a fall while backing away, or an injury caused by a dog that ran into the road.
Section 767.04 covers bites. A separate provision, Fla. Stat. § 767.01, makes owners liable for damage their dogs do to persons or property more broadly, which is the route for injuries where no bite occurred — a knockdown, a fall while retreating, an injury caused by a dog that ran into the road. The two sections are frequently pleaded together, and § 767.01 has been read broadly enough that it isn't merely a fallback.
When Is a Landlord Liable for a Tenant's Dog?
Not automatically. Florida generally requires that the landlord knew of the dog's dangerous propensities and retained enough control over the premises to act — a lease clause permitting removal, for instance — or that a property defect independent of the dog contributed to the injury. Common areas strengthen that argument.
Landlords aren't automatically liable for a tenant's dog under Florida law. Liability generally requires that the landlord knew of the dog's dangerous propensities and retained sufficient control over the premises to do something about it — a lease provision permitting removal, for instance — or that a premises defect independent of the dog contributed to the injury. In common areas, where landlord control is clearest, that argument is meaningfully stronger than inside a leased unit.
Wrongful Death Claims After a Fatal Dog Attack
Florida's Wrongful Death Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16 through 768.26, gives the personal representative a claim on behalf of the estate and surviving family. Recoverable losses include lost support and services, funeral and medical costs, and loss of companionship. The deadline is two years from the date of death.
A fatal attack gives the family a claim under Florida's Wrongful Death Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 768.16 through 768.26, brought by the personal representative on behalf of the estate and surviving family members. Recoverable losses include lost support and services, funeral and medical expenses, and, for a spouse and for children in defined circumstances, loss of companionship and mental pain and suffering. The limitations period is two years from the date of death.
What If the Dog's Owner Has No Insurance?
Liability under § 767.04 survives, but collection becomes the real question. Look first for a standalone animal-liability policy, an umbrella policy, or — where the dog was classified dangerous after July 1, 2025 — the $100,000 policy the Pam Rock Act requires. Florida's homestead protections complicate collection.
If the owner has no coverage, § 767.04 liability survives but collection is the practical question. Look for a standalone animal liability policy, an umbrella policy, or — where the dog was classified dangerous after July 1, 2025 — the mandatory $100,000 policy the Pam Rock Act requires. Without any of those, the claim is a direct action against personal assets, and Florida's generous homestead protections make judgment collection harder here than in many states, which is worth assessing before committing to a long fight.
Expect the owner's coverage to change after a paid claim. Non-renewal, an exclusion for the specific dog, or a breed exclusion added at renewal are all common insurer responses, and pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, and Dobermans appear most often on those lists. Florida does not prohibit insurers from underwriting on breed. None of it affects your claim, but it explains why an owner who was cooperative in week one sometimes stops returning calls once the insurer becomes involved.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Florida has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Florida |
|---|---|---|
| "Bad Dog" sign posted | Available | A complete defense under § 767.04 if the sign was easily readable and displayed in a prominent place at the time of injury — but never against a child under 6, and never where the owner's own negligent act or omission caused the injury. |
| Provocation | Available | Runs through the statute's comparative-negligence clause rather than as a clean bar: negligence by the person bitten reduces the owner's liability proportionally. |
| Trespassing | Available | § 767.04 protects only a person in a public place or lawfully on private property. Lawful presence expressly includes duties imposed by Florida law and by U.S. postal regulations. |
| One-bite / no prior viciousness | Not a defense | Explicitly foreclosed. Liability attaches "regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness." |
| Breed of the dog | Not a defense | Not a factor in the liability analysis, and local breed-specific ordinances have been preempted statewide since October 1, 2023. |
| Veterinary / professional handler | Not a defense | Florida's statute contains no professional-handler exemption of the kind Colorado wrote into § 13-21-124(5)(e). |
Modified comparative negligence (51% bar). § 767.04 contains its own pure proportional reduction, but HB 837 adopted a 51% bar for negligence actions generally. How the two interact is still being worked through in Florida courts; assume majority fault is a genuine risk to the entire recovery.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 51% or more, Florida law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in Florida
For bites on or after March 24, 2023, Florida gives you two years to file, following HB 837's amendment to Fla. Stat. § 95.11 — cut down from the four years that applied before that date, and still applicable to older incidents. There's an unsettled argument that a claim pleaded strictly under § 767.04 is an action founded on statutory liability that retains a four-year period under § 95.11(3)(f); it has not been definitively resolved for dog bite claims, and relying on it is a risk with no upside, since filing within two years costs nothing. The rule that surprises families most concerns children: unlike California, which tolls to 18, or Missouri, which tolls to 21, Florida tolls a minor's claim under § 95.051 only where no parent or guardian is available to sue, where an available parent's interest conflicts with the child's, or where a parent has been adjudicated incapacitated — with most extensions capped at seven years from accrual under § 95.051(2). If a parent can bring the claim, the two-year clock runs from the bite. A wrongful death claim runs two years from the date of death under the Wrongful Death Act. And where a government entity is involved, Fla. Stat. § 768.28 requires written notice to the agency and to the Department of Financial Services, with a waiting period before suit — a separate track that has to be started early.
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 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 (this page) | 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. |
Florida dog bite questions, answered
The questions Florida readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Does Florida have a "one bite" rule?
No. Fla. Stat. § 767.04 makes a dog owner liable for a bite regardless of the dog's prior history and regardless of what the owner knew about it. The owner cannot defend on the ground that the dog had never bitten anyone before.
Does a "Beware of Dog" sign protect the owner in Florida?
Often, yes — and this surprises people. Under § 767.04 an owner who displayed an easily readable "Bad Dog" sign in a prominent place is generally not liable. There are two exceptions: it never applies to a person under 6 years old, and it does not protect an owner whose own negligent act or omission caused the injury.
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in Florida?
Two years from the date of the bite, for bites on or after March 24, 2023, following HB 837's amendment to Fla. Stat. § 95.11. Before that date the period was four years, and the four-year rule still applies to older incidents.
Is a child's dog bite claim in Florida paused until they turn 18?
Usually not, and this is where out-of-state guidance misleads Florida families. Unlike California, which tolls to 18, Florida tolls a minor's claim under § 95.051 only in narrow circumstances — mainly where no parent or guardian is available to sue or where a parent's interest conflicts with the child's. If a parent can bring the claim, the two-year clock runs from the date of the bite.
Can I still recover if I was partly at fault?
In most cases yes, but with a limit. § 767.04 reduces the owner's liability by the percentage of the bitten person's own negligence. Since HB 837, Fla. Stat. § 768.81 also bars recovery entirely for a plaintiff found more than 50% at fault, so a serious provocation dispute can threaten the whole claim rather than just reduce it.
What is the Pam Rock Act and does it affect my claim?
It is Florida's 2025 dangerous-dog law, effective July 1, 2025, named for a postal carrier killed in Interlachen in 2022. Owners of dogs classified dangerous must carry at least $100,000 in liability coverage for that dog and must microchip, sterilize and securely confine it. If the dog that bit you was already classified dangerous, that mandatory policy may be a source of coverage separate from any homeowners policy.
Are pit bulls still banned in Miami-Dade County?
No. Miami-Dade's ban ran from 1989 until October 1, 2023, when Florida's statewide preemption of breed-specific ordinances took effect. Breed has never been part of the liability analysis under § 767.04 in any event.
Key Takeaways for Florida Dog Bite Victims
Florida follows the Strict Liability 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 Florida settlement amounts or connect with a Florida dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄Fla. Stat. § 767.04 — Florida primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice