Michigan Dog Bite Laws Explained (Strict Liability)
Strict Liability
Michigan holds owners strictly liable for bites, with one escape hatch — provocation, judged objectively, so an accidental act can legally count against you.
How Michigan Dog Bite Law Works
Michigan's dog bite statute, MCL 287.351, has been on the books since 1939 and it is about as favourable as strict liability gets. An owner is liable for a bite regardless of the dog's former viciousness or what the owner knew about it, and the statute applies on the owner's own property as readily as on a public street. There is no one-bite defense in Michigan.
Almost every contested Michigan case therefore turns on two words: without provocation. And Michigan reads provocation more broadly than most states do. In Brans v. Extrom, 266 Mich. App. 216 (2005), a woman who accidentally stepped on an elderly dog's tail and was bitten lost, because the court held that an unintentional act can constitute provocation — the analysis looks at the nature of the act and its relationship to the outcome, not at whether you meant to do anything. A Michigan defendant does not have to show intent.
The other feature that distinguishes Michigan is what happens when fault is shared. Under MCL 600.2959, a plaintiff found more than 50 percent at fault loses non-economic damages entirely, but economic damages survive and are simply reduced in proportion. Crossing the halfway line does not end a Michigan claim the way it ends a Georgia or Florida one; it removes the half with no receipts.
Where a Michigan attorney earns the fee is mostly in the provocation sequence and the identity question. Reconstructing the physical events in the seconds before the bite, precisely, matters more here than in states where provocation requires deliberate conduct. And because MCL 287.351 reaches the owner and not a temporary keeper, establishing who legally owned the dog — as opposed to who was holding the leash — is a threshold question, not a detail.
Fees follow the standard pattern: contingency, nothing upfront, commonly around a third of the recovery, paid only from what is recovered, typically nothing owed if there is no recovery.
Timelines are less compressed than most states on this site because Michigan allows three years to file under MCL 600.5805. A straightforward claim with finished treatment can resolve in months; a contested provocation case runs longer. The extra room is genuine, but it is also why Michigan files drift — three years feels distant until the evidence that would have settled the provocation question has evaporated.
Not every bite needs a lawyer. Minor wound, prompt care, no lasting mark, insurer not fighting. What changes it here: any provocation argument at all, a bite by a dog someone else was watching, surgery or visible scarring, a child victim, a policy with a breed or prior-bite exclusion, or an injury where the non-economic half of the claim is the larger half and an insurer is pushing your fault toward 51 percent.
The evidence is consistent regardless: photographs of the wound over time, a careful written account of the physical sequence in the seconds before the bite while it is still fresh, the animal-control report, the legal owner's name and insurance details plus anyone who was caring for the dog, witness contacts, and the full medical record. A free consultation is largely an attorney reading that and telling you honestly how the provocation question is likely to land.
For low-dollar claims, Michigan small claims handles disputes up to $7,000 without lawyers, in the district court for the area where the defendant lives or where the incident occurred — though filing there waives the right to a jury and to an appeal on the facts. Anything involving surgery, scarring, or a disputed insurance position belongs in district or circuit court instead, depending on the amount at stake.
| Liability rule | Strict liability by statute for bites by an owner's dog, defeated only by provocation — which Michigan judges objectively, so an unintentional act can qualify. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Person bitten by dog; liability of owner (Act 73 of 1939)MCL 287.351 |
| Deadline to file | 3 years from the date of the biteMCL 600.5805 |
| If the victim is a child | Narrower than families expect. MCL 600.5851 is a savings clause rather than full tolling: a person under 18 when the claim accrued generally gets one year after turning 18, even where the ordinary period has run. A child bitten at six has until roughly their nineteenth birthday — not until twenty-two. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative fault — bars non-economic damages onlyMCL 600.2959 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | None in an ordinary negligence or dog bite claim. The statutory caps most often cited in Michigan practice apply to medical malpractice and product liability, not here. |
| Does breed matter? | No statewide preemption, and dozens of Michigan municipalities have breed-specific ordinances. Preemption bills aimed at counties, cities and villages, and townships have been introduced without being enacted. Breed is irrelevant to liability under MCL 287.351, but it does affect where a dog may lawfully be kept and whether a policy exclusion applies. |
| Dangerous dog law | MCL 287.321–287.323 (Dangerous Animals, Act 426 of 1988); MCL 287.288 preserves common-law liability |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
What MCL 287.351 Says, and the One Word That Decides Most Cases
Michigan's statute is strict liability with a single escape hatch: the bite must have happened “without provocation.” Michigan courts judge provocation objectively, by the nature of the act rather than the victim's intent, so an accident can legally count as provocation.
The statute, enacted in 1939 and amended effective March 30, 1989, provides: "If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness."
Everything after the first clause is favourable to an injured person: no prior-bite requirement, no scienter, no exception for the owner's own property. Which is why almost every contested Michigan case is fought on the words "without provocation" and nowhere else.
Brans v. Extrom, 266 Mich. App. 216 (2005), is the case that gives that phrase its unusual reach. The plaintiff accidentally stepped on an elderly dog's tail and was bitten. The Court of Appeals upheld a jury instruction that an unintentional act can constitute provocation, reasoning that the definition of provocation looks to the nature of the act and its relationship to the outcome, not to the intent of the person who did it. A Michigan defendant does not have to show you meant to do anything.
The counterweight Michigan courts apply is proportionality — whether the dog's response was reasonable relative to the act. But the practical lesson from Brans is that a claim can turn on an entirely innocent movement, which makes a careful, early account of the physical sequence more valuable in Michigan than in states where provocation requires deliberate conduct.
Michigan's Statute Reaches Owners Only — Not Keepers
MCL 287.351 imposes liability on the owner of the dog. Someone temporarily caring for a dog — a sitter, a friend, a boarding facility — is not an owner and cannot be held to the statute's strict liability standard, though they may still be liable in negligence.
This is the sharpest structural contrast between Michigan and Illinois on this site. Illinois's Animal Control Act defines owner to include anyone who keeps, harbors, cares for, or acts as custodian of an animal, which sweeps in sitters and some landlords. Michigan's statute does not, and Michigan courts have declined to extend the statutory standard to temporary caretakers.
The consequence is practical: identifying who legally owned the dog is the first question in a Michigan case, not an afterthought. A bite by a dog being watched by a neighbour still supports a claim against the actual owner under the statute, and separately against the neighbour in negligence, but the two run on different proof and sometimes on different insurance policies.
Lawful Presence Under Subsection (2)
Subsection (2) defines lawful presence expressly: performing a duty imposed by Michigan law or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or being an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession — unless entry was gained for an unlawful or criminal purpose.
Naming postal regulations directly puts mail carriers inside the statute without argument, the same drafting choice Florida made. Delivery drivers, utility workers and inspectors generally qualify as invitees or licensees of the person in possession.
The exclusion at the end is narrower than a general trespass rule. It removes protection where the person gained lawful entry for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act — which is not the same as merely being somewhere they shouldn't. A licensee who wandered past where they were invited is in a different position from someone who talked their way onto a property intending to commit an offense.
The 51 Percent Rule That Only Kills Half a Michigan Claim
Michigan's comparative fault rule works differently from every other state on this site. Under MCL 600.2959, a plaintiff found more than 50 percent at fault loses non-economic damages entirely — but economic damages survive, reduced in proportion to fault, with no cutoff at all.
In Georgia, crossing the fault line ends the claim. In Illinois and Florida, crossing it ends the claim. In Michigan, crossing it removes pain and suffering, emotional distress and disfigurement while leaving medical bills, lost wages and future care recoverable at the reduced percentage. A plaintiff found 75 percent at fault still recovers a quarter of their economic losses.
That structure changes how a Michigan case is valued and how it is fought. An insurer pushing a provocation argument past the halfway mark is not trying to defeat the claim; it is trying to remove the half of it that has no receipts. In a serious scarring case, where non-economic damages are often the larger figure, that argument is worth more to a carrier than in a case dominated by surgical bills.
Michigan places no general cap on non-economic damages in an ordinary negligence or dog bite claim. The statutory caps most often cited in Michigan practice apply to medical malpractice and product liability, not here.
Three Years to File — and Only One Year After a Child Turns 18
Michigan gives three years from the date of the bite under MCL 600.5805 — longer than most states on this site. Minority tolling under MCL 600.5851 is narrower than families expect: a minor generally gets one year after turning 18, not a fresh three.
The three-year baseline is genuinely generous compared with Florida's two or Arizona's one for the statutory claim. The minor rule is where Michigan diverges from what people assume. MCL 600.5851 is a savings provision, not a full tolling rule: it gives a person who was under 18 when the claim accrued one year after the disability is removed, even where the ordinary limitations period has already run. A child bitten at six has until their nineteenth birthday, not until twenty-two.
That is a real difference from California, where a minor's claim is tolled to 18 and the two-year period runs from there, and from Missouri, which tolls to 21. It is more generous than Florida, which usually does not toll at all if a parent can sue. Michigan sits in between, and the number people most often get wrong is the one-year figure at the end.
Claims involving a state agency run through the Court of Claims, where MCL 600.6431 requires a signed and verified notice of intention to file or a claim itself within one year of the claim accruing. Governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407 also shapes what can be brought against a municipality at all. A bite by a police K-9, a bite on government property, or a dog owned by a public employee acting in the scope of employment should be reviewed against those rules immediately rather than on the three-year schedule.
Dangerous Animal Charges Under Act 426 of 1988
Michigan's Dangerous Animals Act, MCL 287.321 to 287.323, carries some of the heaviest owner penalties in the country. An owner whose dangerous animal causes a death is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment — a separate track from your civil claim.
Where the attack causes serious injury short of death, MCL 287.323 makes the owner guilty of a felony punishable by up to four years, a fine of not less than $2,000, or not less than 500 hours of community service. Where an animal previously adjudicated dangerous causes a non-serious injury, the offense is a misdemeanor carrying up to 90 days, a fine between $250 and $500, or not less than 240 hours of community service.
None of that money comes to you — fines are payable to the state, and a criminal case is not a substitute for a civil claim. What it does produce is an investigative record built to a criminal standard, and an owner with a strong incentive to resolve the civil side quietly while a charge is pending. It also tends to affect how cooperative an owner is with their own insurer.
Common-Law Claims the Dog Law Deliberately Preserves
Michigan's Dog Law expressly preserves the common-law liability of a dog's owner for damages it causes. Trager v. Thor, 445 Mich. 95 (1994), confirms that common-law strict liability and ordinary negligence both remain available alongside MCL 287.351, and that the two theories may be pleaded together in the alternative.
That preservation is what makes the owner-versus-keeper distinction survivable. A temporary caretaker outside the statute can still be liable in negligence for failing to exercise ordinary care in controlling the animal, and a common-law strict liability theory against a possessor exists independently of the 1939 statute.
It also matters where the injury was not a bite. MCL 287.351 says bites, so a knockdown, a chase-induced fall, or an injury from a dog running into a road falls outside it — and lands on the common-law and negligence theories rather than disappearing. Illinois solved that problem inside its statute; Michigan solves it by keeping the older law alive.
No Statewide Breed Preemption, and Who Actually Pays
Michigan has no statewide preemption of breed-specific local ordinances, and dozens of Michigan municipalities have them. Breed is irrelevant to liability under MCL 287.351, but a local breed ordinance can affect where a dog may lawfully be kept and whether insurance responds.
Preemption bills have been introduced in the Michigan legislature — including packages aimed at counties, cities and villages, and townships — without being enacted, so local ordinances remain in force. Compare Arizona, where a court may not consider breed at all, or Florida, which preempted local breed rules statewide in 2023. Michigan has done neither.
Most Michigan claims are paid from the owner's homeowners or renters policy, commonly carrying $100,000 to $500,000 in liability limits. Breed exclusions and prior-bite exclusions in those policies are worth checking early, because a denial on an exclusion is a different problem from a denial on liability and is sometimes negotiable in ways liability denials are not. Where there is no coverage at all, the claim becomes a direct action against personal assets, and the value of a judgment tracks what the defendant actually owns.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Michigan has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Michigan |
|---|---|---|
| Provocation — including an accidental act | Available | The only defense the statute leaves, and Michigan reads it broadly. Brans v. Extrom, 266 Mich. App. 216 (2005), upheld a finding of provocation where the plaintiff accidentally stepped on a dog's tail: the test looks at the nature of the act and its relationship to the outcome, not the actor's intent. |
| Defendant was a keeper, not the owner | Available | MCL 287.351 reaches the owner of the dog. A temporary caretaker — a sitter, a friend, a boarding facility — cannot be held to the statutory standard, though a negligence claim against them remains available. Illinois takes the opposite approach. |
| Entry gained for an unlawful or criminal purpose | Available | Subsection (2) removes protection where a person gained lawful entry onto the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act — narrower than a general trespass defense, since a licensee who simply strayed is in a different position. |
| Shared fault over 50% — non-economic damages only | Limited | MCL 600.2959 removes pain and suffering and other non-economic damages at more than 50 percent fault, but economic damages remain recoverable at the reduced percentage. Crossing the line halves a scarring case without ending it. |
| The dog did not bite — it knocked me down | Limited | MCL 287.351 says bites, so a knockdown or chase-induced fall falls outside it. The claim moves to common-law strict liability or negligence, both expressly preserved by MCL 287.288 and confirmed in Trager v. Thor, 445 Mich. 95 (1994). |
| Bite happened on the owner's own property | Not a defense | Expressly foreclosed. The statute applies to a person "lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog." |
| One-bite / no prior viciousness | Not a defense | Foreclosed by the statute's own text — liability attaches regardless of the dog's former viciousness or the owner's knowledge of it. |
Michigan does not work like the other states on this site.Under MCL 600.2959, crossing the halfway line does not end your claim — it deletes the half of it that has no receipts. Non-economic damages disappear entirely above 50 percent fault. Economic damages keep going, reduced in proportion, with no cutoff at all.
Example: on a claim with $60,000 in medical bills and lost wages plus $90,000 in scarring and pain, being found 60 percent at fault leaves roughly$24,000 — the reduced economic share — and nothing from the $90,000. At 40 percent fault the same claim yields about$90,000. That cliff sits entirely inside one category, which is why an insurer pushing a provocation argument in a Michigan scarring case is aiming at a specific line rather than at liability generally.
Statute of Limitations in Michigan
Michigan gives three years from the date of the bite under MCL 600.5805 — longer than most states covered on this site, and longer than the two years that apply in Florida, Illinois, Colorado and California. A wrongful death claim also generally runs three years from the date of death. The rule that catches families out is the minority provision. MCL 600.5851 is a savings clause rather than a full tolling rule: a person who was under 18 when the claim accrued generally has one year after turning 18 to bring it, even if the ordinary period has already expired. A child bitten at six has until roughly their nineteenth birthday, not until twenty-two. That is meaningfully narrower than California's tolling to 18 plus two years, or Missouri's tolling to 21, and it is the figure most often reported incorrectly in out-of-state guidance. Where a government entity is involved, a separate and much shorter track applies: claims against the state proceed through the Court of Claims, where MCL 600.6431 requires a signed and verified notice of intention to file a claim, or the claim itself, within one year of accrual, and governmental immunity under MCL 691.1407 shapes what can be brought against a municipality at all. A bite by a police K-9, a bite on government property, or a dog owned by a public employee acting within the scope of employment should be reviewed against those rules immediately rather than on the three-year schedule.
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 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 (this page) | 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. |
Michigan dog bite questions, answered
The questions Michigan readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Does Michigan have a "one bite" rule?
No. MCL 287.351 makes the owner liable "regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness." There is no free first bite, and the statute applies on the owner's own property as readily as on a public street.
Can accidentally stepping on a dog count as provocation?
In Michigan, yes. Brans v. Extrom, 266 Mich. App. 216 (2005), upheld a jury instruction that an unintentional act can constitute provocation, reasoning that the definition looks to the nature of the act and its relationship to the outcome rather than the intent of the person who did it. Michigan courts do apply a proportionality check — whether the dog's response was reasonable relative to the act — but a defendant does not have to show you meant anything.
Am I barred from recovering if I was more than half at fault?
Not entirely, and this is unusual. Under MCL 600.2959 a plaintiff found more than 50 percent at fault recovers no non-economic damages — no pain and suffering, emotional distress or disfigurement — but economic damages such as medical bills and lost wages remain recoverable, reduced in proportion to fault. Someone 75 percent at fault still recovers a quarter of their economic losses.
The dog was being watched by someone else. Who do I sue?
The owner, under the statute. MCL 287.351 imposes strict liability on the owner of the dog, and Michigan courts have declined to extend that standard to a temporary caretaker. A claim against the person who was watching the dog has to be built in ordinary negligence instead, which requires proving they failed to exercise reasonable care. Both can be pleaded together.
How long do I have, and is my child's claim paused until 18?
Three years from the date of the bite under MCL 600.5805. For a child, MCL 600.5851 is a savings clause rather than full tolling: it generally gives one year after the eighteenth birthday, not a fresh three-year period. A child bitten at six has until roughly their nineteenth birthday. That is narrower than California's tolling to 18 plus two years or Missouri's tolling to 21, and it is the figure most often reported incorrectly.
What if the dog knocked me down but never bit me?
MCL 287.351 covers bites specifically, so a knockdown, a chase-induced fall, or an injury from a dog running into the road falls outside it. The claim does not disappear — it moves to common-law strict liability or negligence, both expressly preserved by MCL 287.288 and confirmed in Trager v. Thor, 445 Mich. 95 (1994). Illinois solved this inside its statute; Michigan solves it by keeping the older law alive.
Can the dog's owner face criminal charges in Michigan?
Yes, and Michigan's penalties are among the heaviest in the country. Under MCL 287.323, an owner whose dangerous animal causes a death is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 15 years. Serious injury short of death is a felony carrying up to four years, a fine of not less than $2,000, or not less than 500 hours of community service. That track is separate from your civil claim, but the investigative record it produces is often the strongest evidence available.
Are pit bulls banned anywhere in Michigan?
Michigan has no statewide preemption of breed-specific ordinances, and dozens of municipalities have them. Preemption bills covering counties, cities and villages, and townships have been introduced without being enacted, so local rules remain in force. Breed plays no part in liability under MCL 287.351 — but it does affect where a dog may lawfully be kept, and breed exclusions appear in Michigan homeowners policies more often than in states with preemption.
Key Takeaways for Michigan Dog Bite Victims
Michigan 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 Michigan settlement amounts or connect with a Michigan dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄MCL 287.351 — Michigan primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice