Missouri Dog Bite Laws Explained (Strict Liability)
Strict Liability
Missouri is a strict liability state for dog bites — an owner is on the hook for an unprovoked bite regardless of the dog's history, though provocation and trespassing get argued in nearly every contested claim.
How Missouri Dog Bite Law Works
Missouri's dog bite statute, RSMo § 273.036, is younger than California's — it was enacted in 2011 and it's narrower in one specific way: it applies to bites. If a dog knocked you down, chased you, or otherwise injured you without actually biting, that claim usually falls back to Missouri's older common-law rule, which does require showing the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. For an actual bite, though, the 2011 statute removes that requirement entirely.
None of that makes a claim automatic. Insurers still argue over whether you provoked the dog, whether you were lawfully on the property, and how much of the injury is really worth. This page walks through what the statute says, what compensation typically looks like, and what to do next — a Missouri attorney can tell you exactly how these rules apply to your situation.
Where an attorney actually earns their fee in a Missouri case is rarely the strict-liability question itself — that part of the statute is fairly clean. It's everything around it: pulling the animal-control bite report before it's purged, documenting a provocation dispute before memories fade, coordinating with treating physicians so the medical record actually supports the claim, and calculating what an injury that's still healing is realistically going to cost before you settle for a number based on today's bills alone.
Fee structure is close to universal here: contingency, meaning no cost upfront and a fee — commonly around a third of the recovery — that only comes out of money actually recovered. If the claim doesn't recover anything, there's typically no fee owed. That's specifically why cost isn't usually the barrier to getting a second opinion on a denied or lowballed claim.
How long a Missouri claim takes depends mostly on two things: how contested liability is, and how far along your medical treatment is. A clear-liability, fully-healed injury can resolve in a few months. A disputed-provocation case, or an injury still requiring treatment, routinely runs a year or more — settling before treatment is finished is one of the more common ways people end up accepting less than the injury actually costs them.
A minor bite with no lasting mark and an insurer that isn't disputing anything can sometimes get resolved without a lawyer. What usually changes that: any injury needing stitches or surgery, a child victim, a denied claim, or a genuine dispute over provocation or lawful presence — precisely the fact patterns Missouri insurers lean on hardest under § 273.036's provocation and trespass carve-outs.
Regardless of whether you hire someone, the evidence that actually determines how a Missouri claim resolves doesn't change: photos of the injury taken right away and again during healing, the animal control incident report, the owner's name and insurance details, any witness contact information, and every medical bill and record tied to treatment. A free consultation is mostly an attorney reviewing exactly that material and telling you plainly whether it supports more than you'd get negotiating alone, or whether the claim is simple enough not to need one.
For very minor claims, Missouri's small claims court — part of the Associate Circuit Court — is a real option worth knowing about: claims up to $5,000 under RSMo § 482.305 can be filed without a lawyer, for a filing fee typically between $35 and $45. It's a poor fit for anything involving significant medical bills or a disputed insurance question, but for a low-dollar claim against an uncooperative owner, it can resolve faster than hiring an attorney for a case that was never going to be worth much more than the small claims limit anyway. Anything larger goes to the regular Circuit Court in the county where the bite happened.
| Liability rule | Strict liability by statute for unprovoked bites, with provocation and lawful presence written into the statute as express conditions rather than affirmative defenses. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Dog bites, strict liability, damagesRSMo § 273.036 |
| Deadline to file | 5 years from the date of the biteMo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4) |
| If the victim is a child | Tolled until the injured person turns 21, with the five years running from there. For a child injured young that can mean decades before the deadline becomes relevant. |
| Shared fault | Pure comparative faultGustafson v. Benda (Mo. banc 1983) 661 S.W.2d 11 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | None for ordinary personal injury claims. Missouri's statutory caps apply to medical malpractice, not to dog bite claims. |
| Does breed matter? | Unlike California and Arizona, Missouri does NOT preempt local breed rules — more than 70 municipalities enforce breed-specific ordinances. Springfield still bans pit bull ownership outright; Independence repealed its ban in 2023. Breed never affects § 273.036 liability, but it can determine whether the dog was lawfully in that city at all. |
| Dangerous dog law | RSMo § 578.024 (keeping a dangerous dog) |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
What RSMo § 273.036 Requires
Missouri's 2011 statute imposes strict liability, but with two conditions written into the text itself: the bite must be without provocation, and the person bitten must be on public property or lawfully on private property. Neither depends on the dog having any prior history.
RSMo § 273.036 states: "The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or possessor's knowledge of such viciousness."
Three conditions come out of that text. The bite has to happen without provocation, the victim has to be on public property or lawfully on private property, and none of it depends on whether the dog ever showed aggression before. Missouri courts read "provocation" narrowly — petting a dog, walking past it, or startling it by accident doesn't count. Hitting the dog, pulling its tail, cornering it, or threatening it can.
What Counts as “Lawfully on Private Property”
Mail carriers, delivery drivers, invited guests and contractors all qualify, even on the dog owner's own property. A trespasser generally does not — but a child who wanders into a yard after a ball is usually still treated as lawfully present under Missouri's attractive-nuisance and implied-licence principles.
Being on the property lawfully matters just as much as the no-provocation requirement. A mail carrier, a delivery driver, an invited guest, or a contractor performing a job all count as lawfully present, even on the dog owner's own property. A trespasser generally falls outside the statute's protection — but a child who wanders into a yard to retrieve a ball is usually still treated as lawfully present under Missouri's attractive-nuisance and implied-license principles, not as a trespasser.
How Missouri Courts Read “Provocation”
Narrowly, which favours claimants. Petting a dog, walking past it, or startling it by accident does not count. Hitting it, pulling its tail, cornering it, or threatening it can. Because provocation is a condition of the statute rather than a defense, establishing it defeats strict liability outright.
Missouri follows a pure comparative fault rule. If an insurer can show you share some responsibility — ignoring a posted warning, entering a fenced area you didn't have permission to enter — your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault rather than eliminated outright. A 20%-at-fault finding cuts the award by 20%; it doesn't zero it out the way an all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule would in some other states.
Pure Comparative Fault in Missouri
Missouri reduces damages by your percentage of fault rather than eliminating them. A 20%-at-fault finding cuts the award by 20% and nothing more. That is meaningfully more forgiving than the all-or-nothing rules some states apply, and than Colorado's 50% bar next door.
Unlike California, Missouri has no state law barring cities from regulating dogs by breed — and more than 70 Missouri municipalities currently enforce breed-specific ordinances, mostly targeting pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Doberman mixes. Springfield still bans pit bull ownership outright, with narrow exceptions for shelters and registered show dogs; Independence repealed its own pit bull ban in 2023. Missouri lawmakers have introduced bills to preempt local breed bans statewide almost every year since 2014, most recently in 2022, but none has passed — so what's legal for a specific breed genuinely depends on which Missouri city you're in, separate from the state's bite-liability statute, which never turns on breed either way.
Missouri Cities Can Still Ban Breeds
Unlike California and Arizona, Missouri does not preempt local breed rules — more than 70 municipalities enforce them. Springfield still bans pit bull ownership outright; Independence repealed its ban in 2023. Breed never affects § 273.036 liability, but it can determine whether the dog was lawful in that city at all.
Beyond city ordinances, a dog can be criminally classified as "dangerous" once it has bitten without provocation, independent of a civil claim. Missouri also makes a second, more serious bite a standalone crime under RSMo § 578.024, "keeping a dangerous dog": if a dog has already bitten once and bites again, the owner faces a class B misdemeanor, escalating to a class A misdemeanor if the second bite causes serious injury, a class E felony if both bites caused serious injury, and a class D felony if the second attack is fatal. The dog itself is seized and, absent a successful appeal to the circuit court within 10 business days, euthanized. None of this criminal exposure affects whether the owner's insurance pays your separate civil claim under § 273.036 — the two proceed independently.
Criminal Liability for a Second Bite
RSMo § 578.024 makes keeping a dangerous dog a standalone crime. If a dog has bitten once and bites again, the owner faces a class B misdemeanor, escalating to a class A misdemeanor, class E felony, or class D felony with severity. The dog is seized and, absent a successful appeal, euthanized.
Landlords aren't automatically on the hook for a tenant's dog under Missouri law, but they can be held liable under ordinary negligence principles if they actually knew (or reasonably should have known) the dog was dangerous and had the authority to have it removed but didn't act. Prior complaints from neighbors, a landlord witnessing aggressive behavior directly, or a documented earlier incident are the kind of evidence that establishes that notice; broken fencing or a failure to secure a common area the dog could escape through can support a separate claim even without proof the landlord knew the dog specifically was dangerous.
Landlord Liability Under Missouri Law
Not automatic. A Missouri landlord can be liable under ordinary negligence if they knew or reasonably should have known the dog was dangerous and had authority to require removal but did not act. Prior written complaints from neighbours are the usual proof of that notice.
A fatal attack gives surviving family members a wrongful death claim under RSMo § 537.080, built on the same strict-liability foundation as a personal injury claim. Missouri prioritizes who can bring that claim in classes — the spouse, children, and parents of the deceased have first priority, then siblings, then a court-appointed plaintiff if no one in the first two classes steps forward. Recoverable damages include funeral expenses and the pecuniary value of the support, care, and companionship the family lost. Worth flagging clearly: the wrongful death statute of limitations is three years from the date of death (RSMo § 537.100) — shorter than the five-year window that applies to a non-fatal personal injury claim under § 516.120.
Wrongful Death and the Shorter Three-Year Deadline
RSMo § 537.080 gives surviving family a claim on the same strict liability foundation, with priority classes determining who may sue. Worth flagging clearly: the wrongful death deadline is three years from the date of death under § 537.100 — much shorter than the five-year window for a non-fatal injury.
If the dog's owner has no homeowners or renters insurance, § 273.036's strict liability still applies, but actually collecting gets harder. Some owners carry a separate animal-liability policy even without standard homeowners coverage, and it's worth identifying that early. Without any insurance, the claim becomes a direct suit against the owner's personal assets, and a judgment is only as good as what the owner actually has to collect against — a reality worth assessing before investing heavily in litigating against someone who may have little to pay with.
If the Owner Has No Insurance
Strict liability under § 273.036 still applies, but collecting becomes the practical question. Check for a standalone animal-liability policy first. Without coverage, the claim is a direct suit against the owner's personal assets, and a judgment is only as good as what that owner actually has.
Mail carriers, delivery drivers, and anyone performing a job on the property are lawfully present under § 273.036 the same as any invited guest, so the statute protects them the same way. USPS carriers have a separate path for their own employer-side claim through the federal Employees' Compensation Act, but that doesn't replace or block a civil claim against the dog's owner — the two run independently, and a private carrier like a UPS, FedEx, or Amazon driver, who has no federal comp equivalent at all, relies entirely on the state civil claim.
Delivery Drivers, Postal Workers, and Government Dogs
Route workers are lawfully present under § 273.036 like any invited guest. Missouri's statute contains no police-dog carve-out, but a claim involving a government agency runs on a separate track with a notice deadline of roughly 90 days — dramatically shorter than the ordinary five years.
Missouri's bite statute doesn't carve out an exception for police or government-owned dogs the way California's does, but a claim involving one usually runs through a separate track anyway: a notice of claim against the government agency, which in Missouri generally has to be filed within roughly 90 days of the incident. That's dramatically shorter than the five-year window that applies to an ordinary private dog bite claim, and it's easy to miss if you don't realize a government entity is involved until well after the fact.
A successful claim can change how the dog's owner is insured going forward, which is worth understanding even though it doesn't affect your recovery. Insurers frequently respond to a paid claim by non-renewing the policy, excluding that specific dog going forward, or placing the dog's breed — commonly pit bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, and Dobermans — on a breed exclusion list for future coverage. Missouri doesn't restrict insurers from using breed to deny or cancel coverage the way a handful of other states do, which is part of why some Missouri claims get more contested than the facts alone would suggest.
Dog Parks and Multi-Dog Attacks
Liability attaches per dog and per owner, so two dogs from different households means each owner answers for their own animal. A public off-leash area does not complicate lawful presence, since being there is the point — the recurring dispute is provocation, not your right to be in the park.
A bite involving more than one dog, or an incident at a dog park, doesn't fundamentally change the § 273.036 analysis. Liability attaches per dog and per owner, so if two dogs attack together and belong to different people, each owner can be separately liable for their dog's role in it. A public off-leash area doesn't complicate the "lawfully present" question, since you're there by definition; the more common dispute in a dog park case is whether you did something to provoke the specific dog that bit you, not whether you had a right to be in the park.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Missouri has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Missouri |
|---|---|---|
| Provocation | Available | Built into the statute as a condition rather than a defense — § 273.036 only applies to a bite "without provocation." Missouri courts read it narrowly: petting, walking past, or accidentally startling a dog does not count; hitting, cornering or tail-pulling can. |
| Trespassing | Available | The statute requires the person be on public property or lawfully on private property. A child who wanders into a yard after a ball is usually still treated as lawfully present under attractive-nuisance and implied-licence principles. |
| The injury was not a bite | Available | § 273.036 was enacted in 2011 and applies to bites. A knockdown or chase falls back to Missouri's older common-law rule, which does require proving the owner knew the dog was dangerous. |
| One-bite / no prior viciousness | Not a defense | Foreclosed for bite claims by the statute's express language on former viciousness and owner knowledge. |
| Posted warning sign | Not a defense | Missouri has no statutory sign defense. A sign may support a comparative-fault argument but does not bar the claim as it would in Florida or Colorado. |
| Comparative fault as a complete bar | Not a defense | Missouri is a pure comparative fault state, so even substantial plaintiff fault reduces rather than eliminates recovery. |
| Breed of the dog | Not a defense | Irrelevant to § 273.036 liability — though unlike most states on this site, Missouri does allow cities to regulate and even ban breeds, which can matter to the dog's fate and the owner's citations. |
Pure comparative fault. Damages are reduced by your percentage of fault rather than eliminated. A 20% finding cuts the award by 20% and no more — it never zeroes out the way a modified rule does in Colorado.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — and even a majority-fault finding would reduce the award rather than eliminate it.
Statute of Limitations in Missouri
Missouri gives you five years from the date of the bite to file a personal injury lawsuit, under the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4) — longer than many states, and longer than Missouri's own three-year wrongful death window if the attack turns out to be fatal (RSMo § 537.100). If the injured person is a minor, the clock is tolled until they turn 21, and the five years runs from there — which in practice can mean decades of room before the deadline actually matters for a child injured young. Courts may also apply a discovery-rule exception if the full extent of an injury wasn't immediately apparent, though that's the exception rather than something to plan around. If a government entity or government employee is involved — a municipal animal-control dog, for instance — a separate notice-of-claim deadline applies, generally around 90 days, dramatically shorter than the standard five years, and one that gets missed specifically because people don't realize a government entity is involved until well after the fact.
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 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 (this page) | 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. |
Missouri dog bite questions, answered
The questions Missouri readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
How long do I have to file a dog bite claim in Missouri?
Five years from the date of the bite under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4) — the longest window of any state covered on this site. If the injured person was a minor, the clock is tolled until they turn 21 and the five years runs from there. A wrongful death claim is shorter, at three years from the date of death under RSMo § 537.100.
What counts as provocation in Missouri?
Missouri courts read it narrowly. Petting a dog, walking past it, or startling it by accident does not count as provocation. Hitting the dog, pulling its tail, cornering it, or threatening it can. The distinction matters more here than in most states because § 273.036 conditions strict liability on the bite being "without provocation" — so provocation defeats the claim rather than merely reducing it.
Does Missouri's dog bite statute cover injuries that are not bites?
No. RSMo § 273.036 was enacted in 2011 and applies specifically to bites. If a dog knocked you down, chased you, or otherwise injured you without biting, the claim falls back to Missouri's older common-law rule, which does require showing the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous.
Can Missouri cities ban pit bulls?
Yes, and many do — more than 70 Missouri municipalities enforce breed-specific ordinances. Springfield still bans pit bull ownership outright with narrow exceptions; Independence repealed its ban in 2023. That is the opposite of California and Arizona, which preempt local breed rules. Breed never affects § 273.036 liability either way.
Does it matter which side of Kansas City the bite happened on?
Enormously. The Missouri side follows § 273.036's strict liability rule. The Kansas side follows the one-bite rule, which requires proving the owner knew the dog was dangerous. The same attack a few miles apart can be a straightforward claim or a much harder negligence case depending on which side of State Line Road it occurred.
Where do I report a dog bite in Kansas City?
Through the City of Kansas City's Neighborhood Services Department, Animal Services Division. Animal control enforcement moved back in-house on July 30, 2025 after KC Pet Project had run it under contract since 2020. KC Pet Project still operates the municipal shelter at Swope Park but no longer handles bite calls, so older articles pointing you there are describing an arrangement that no longer applies.
Can the dog's owner face criminal charges in Missouri?
Yes, on a track entirely separate from your civil claim. Under RSMo § 578.024, a dog that has already bitten once and bites again exposes the owner to a class B misdemeanor, escalating to a class A misdemeanor, class E felony, or class D felony depending on the severity of the injuries. The dog is seized and, absent a successful appeal to the circuit court within 10 business days, euthanized.
Key Takeaways for Missouri Dog Bite Victims
Missouri 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 Missouri settlement amounts or connect with a Missouri dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 — Missouri primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice