Oregon Dog Bite Laws Explained (Mixed Statute)
Mixed Statute
Oregon's strict liability statute — ORS 31.360 — makes dog owners and possessors liable for bites and other injuries without any requirement to prove prior knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Oregon bans breed-specific ordinances statewide, and the 'not greater than' comparative fault rule means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault still recovers half their damages.
How Oregon Dog Bite Law Works
If a dog has bitten or injured you in Oregon, state law provides meaningful protection. ORS 31.360 imposes strict liability on the dog's owner or possessor — no evidence of prior bites, and no proof the owner knew about any danger, is required. If their dog injured you, they are liable.
Oregon's statute covers the 'owner' and the 'possessor' of the dog — a dog walker, boarding facility, or any person in actual custody of the dog at the time of the attack faces the same direct strict liability as the registered owner. The statute also covers 'bitten or otherwise injured,' sweeping in knockdowns, claw injuries, and any other harm the dog causes.
Oregon uses modified comparative fault under ORS 31.600 with a 'not greater than' standard. A plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half their damages — only at 51% or above is recovery barred. Provocation can reduce your award as comparative fault or serve as a complete defense if the conduct rises to deliberate action directed at the dog.
Two years is the filing deadline under ORS 12.110. The Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.275) requires written notice within 180 days for government entity claims — a police K-9 bite must trigger that notice review immediately.
Oregon bans breed-specific ordinances under ORS 609.205. The § 31.360 liability analysis is entirely breed-neutral — the defendant cannot argue you should have recognized the breed's danger and avoided the dog.
Multnomah County Animal Services (503-988-7387) handles Portland and unincorporated Multnomah County. The animal control file documents the dog's identity, vaccination status, and initiates quarantine — and may contain prior complaints that support concurrent negligence theories.
| Liability rule | Strict liability under ORS 31.360. Liability extends to the dog's owner and any possessor of the dog at the time of the attack. Oregon prohibits breed-specific local ordinances under ORS 609.205. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | Oregon Dog Bite StatuteORS 31.360 |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the injuryORS 12.110(1) |
| If the victim is a child | ORS 12.160 tolls the limitations period during minority. A minor bitten before reaching 18 generally has until two years after their 18th birthday. Government entity claims are subject to the 180-day notice requirement regardless of the victim's age. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative fault — 51% barORS 31.600 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | No statutory cap on non-economic damages in dog bite cases against private defendants in Oregon. |
| Does breed matter? | Oregon prohibits breed-specific ordinances statewide under ORS 609.205. No city or county may restrict or regulate dogs by breed. The § 31.360 liability analysis is entirely breed-neutral. |
| Dangerous dog law | ORS 609.090–609.110 (dangerous dog declaration). A dog that has caused injury may be declared dangerous, triggering additional owner obligations. |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
What Does Oregon's Dog Bite Statute Say?
Oregon is a strict liability state under ORS 31.360. The owner or possessor of any dog is liable for injuries caused by the dog — bites or any other injury — without any requirement to prove prior knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Liability reaches owners and anyone in actual possession of the dog at the time of injury.
ORS 31.360(1) provides: "The owner or possessor of any dog is liable in damages to a person that is bitten or otherwise injured by the dog, without proof that the owner or possessor knew or had reason to know that the dog had the propensity to cause the type of injury that occurred."
The phrase "owner or possessor" expands liability beyond the registered owner to anyone in actual possession of the dog at the time of the injury. A dog walker, a dog-sitting neighbor, and a boarding kennel each qualify as "possessor" during the period they have the animal. Oregon also uses "bitten or otherwise injured" — covering knockdowns, claw injuries, and other harm beyond a traditional bite.
Oregon's Statewide Breed Preemption
ORS 609.205 prohibits cities and counties from enacting breed-specific ordinances. No municipality in Oregon may ban or restrict dogs based solely on their breed. Breed plays no role in the § 31.360 liability analysis — the claim turns on what happened, not what kind of dog was involved.
This statewide preemption distinguishes Oregon from Indiana, Missouri, and Mississippi, where municipalities retain full authority to regulate by breed. In Oregon, a defense argument based on the victim's awareness that a particular breed is aggressive is unavailable as a breed-specific claim. The § 31.360 analysis is the same regardless of the dog's breed or mix.
For a victim, breed preemption means the claim is analyzed identically whether the attacking dog was a small terrier or a large working breed. The inquiry focuses on the dog's actual conduct and the circumstances of the attack.
Lawful Presence and the Trespass Defense
ORS 31.360 applies when the victim is lawfully present in the location of the attack. A trespasser on private property falls outside the statute and must rely on common-law negligence. Oregon courts define lawful presence broadly for public places and use a contextual analysis for private property.
Express or implied invitation satisfies lawful presence — a guest, a customer, a delivery worker on their route, or a utility employee on an easement are all lawfully present. A person who enters private property without permission or against a posted restriction is not. Postal carriers and delivery workers are among the most straightforward ORS 31.360 claimants: they are on the property in the performance of a legal duty.
In dense urban areas like Portland, the lawful presence question arises frequently for apartment building common areas — a shared hallway, lobby, or courtyard where a tenant's dog attacks a visitor or another resident. Courts generally treat invited guests and other tenants as lawfully present in common areas.
Comparative Fault and the 51% Bar
Oregon uses modified comparative fault under ORS 31.600. A plaintiff whose fault is not greater than the combined fault of the defendants recovers, with the award reduced proportionally. At exactly 50% plaintiff fault, recovery is still allowed. The effective bar falls at 51%.
"Not greater than" language means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault still recovers 50% of their damages — unlike Utah and Oklahoma where the bar falls at exactly 50% under "equals or exceeds" language. Provocation is the comparative fault argument most often raised against an ORS 31.360 claim: conduct that does not rise to a complete defense can still be assessed as comparative fault and reduce the award by the victim's percentage.
Oregon courts have applied the comparative fault analysis to strict liability dog bite claims, meaning the defense can argue victim conduct even where the § 31.360 threshold elements are met. The practical result is that clear provocation argues for a complete defense, while lesser victim conduct argues for a percentage reduction.
Oregon's Dangerous Dog Framework
ORS 609.100 establishes the process for declaring a dog potentially dangerous or dangerous after a documented attack. A prior designation does not change the ORS 31.360 strict liability analysis — it already applies without one — but affects the owner's containment obligations and is valuable investigation evidence.
Local animal control authorities handle dangerous dog proceedings in Oregon. After a documented attack, a complaint to local animal control can initiate a hearing under ORS 609.100. The resulting file — prior bite reports, investigation records, hearing outcomes — is the primary documentary evidence for establishing any common-law negligence theory alongside the strict liability claim.
Multnomah County Animal Services handles Portland and much of the metro area. The county maintains records for prior bite reports and dangerous dog proceedings, which are obtainable under Oregon's public records law.
How Long Do You Have to File in Oregon?
Two years from the date of the injury under ORS 12.110. For a minor, ORS 12.160 tolls the period during minority. Government entity claims require written notice within 180 days under the Oregon Tort Claims Act — reduced to 30 days for emergency service provider claims.
The two-year period covers both the ORS 31.360 strict liability claim and any concurrent negligence theories. Oregon does not apply a different limitations period based on the theory pursued in dog bite cases.
The Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.275) requires written notice to the governmental body within 180 days for most government-entity claims. A bite by a police K-9, a county animal control dog, or a state-employed handler's dog is subject to this 180-day window — missing it bars the public-entity claim permanently even if the two-year period has not yet run.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means Oregon has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in Oregon |
|---|---|---|
| Provocation | Available | Deliberate conduct directed at the dog that causes it to react aggressively can eliminate the § 31.360 claim or reduce recovery as comparative fault. Accidental contact or startling the dog typically does not constitute provocation. |
| Trespass | Limited | ORS 31.360 does not expressly limit strict liability to lawfully-present victims. Trespass may be raised as comparative fault under ORS 31.600 rather than as a categorical statutory bar. |
| Comparative fault | Limited | Conduct short of deliberate provocation may be assessed as comparative fault, reducing the award proportionally. The plaintiff is barred only if their fault exceeds 50% — at exactly 50% the plaintiff still recovers half. |
| Assumption of risk | Limited | Voluntary, knowing approach to a dog the plaintiff knew was dangerous may be assessed as comparative fault. Oregon's breed preemption eliminates the breed-recognition argument. |
Modified comparative fault — 51% bar. A plaintiff found more than 50% at fault recovers nothing. A plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half their damages. Conduct short of deliberate provocation may be assessed as comparative fault to reduce the award proportionally.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 51% or more, Oregon law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in Oregon
Two years from the date of the injury under ORS 12.110(1). For a minor, ORS 12.160 tolls the period during minority. The critical exception is claims against governmental entities. The Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.275) requires written notice to the appropriate governmental body within 180 days of the date the injury was suffered — reduced to 30 days for claims against emergency service providers. A bite by a police K-9, a county animal control dog, or any government employee's dog during employment must be identified against the 180-day (or 30-day) window immediately. Missing it bars the government-entity claim permanently regardless of how much of the two-year period remains.
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 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 (this page) | 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. |
Oregon dog bite questions, answered
The questions Oregon readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Does Oregon require proof of a prior bite?
No. ORS 31.360 is a strict liability statute — owners and possessors are liable without any showing of prior knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Oregon also extends liability to the possessor of the dog, not only the registered owner.
Does Oregon allow breed-specific ordinances?
No. ORS 609.205 prohibits local governments from enacting breed-specific ordinances. The § 31.360 strict liability analysis is entirely breed-neutral — the claim turns on the facts of the attack, not the breed of the dog.
What is the filing deadline for an Oregon dog bite case?
Two years from the date of injury under ORS 12.110. For minors, ORS 12.160 tolls the period. Government entity claims require written notice within 180 days under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.275); claims against emergency service providers require notice within 30 days.
Can a dog walker or boarding facility be liable under Oregon law?
Yes. ORS 31.360 extends strict liability to the “possessor” of the dog, not only the registered owner. A dog walker, boarding kennel, or any person in actual custody of the dog at the time of the attack is directly liable on the same terms as the owner.
Key Takeaways for Oregon Dog Bite Victims
Oregon follows the Mixed Statute standard — that determines whether you need to prove the owner's prior knowledge or can hold them liable automatically. Understanding which standard applies is the first step in knowing whether you have a viable claim.
Your filing deadline is fixed by state law. Missing it permanently closes your case, no matter how strong the evidence is. Start the clock from the date of the bite.
Document everything from day one — photos of the injury, medical records, the dog owner's name, and any witness contact details. That documentation is the single most controllable factor in how much you ultimately recover.
Ready to understand what your case may be worth? See Oregon settlement amounts or connect with a Oregon dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄ORS 31.360 — Oregon primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice