West Virginia Dog Bite Laws Explained (Strict Liability)
Strict Liability
West Virginia's strict liability statute — W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 — holds both dog owners and anyone who harbors a dog strictly liable for injuries the dog causes. The harboring theory can extend liability to landlords and property managers who knowingly kept a dangerous dog on their premises.
How West Virginia Dog Bite Law Works
If a dog has bitten or injured you in West Virginia, state law provides strong protection. W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 makes any person who owns or harbors a dog strictly liable for injuries that dog causes — no proof of prior dangerous propensity or owner knowledge is required. There is no first-bite rule in West Virginia.
The statute's reach beyond the registered owner is one of its most important features. A harborer — anyone who keeps, maintains, or allows a dog to remain on their property with their knowledge — can be held liable alongside the registered owner. This theory is especially important in rental housing cases: a landlord who knew a tenant kept a dangerous dog on the property and failed to act may qualify as a harborer, potentially adding their commercial insurance to the recovery pool.
West Virginia uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar under § 55-7-13a. A plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half their damages — the bar falls at more than 50%. Provocation can reduce the award as comparative fault or, if deliberate, serve as a complete defense.
Two years is your filing deadline under W. Va. Code § 55-2-12 — one of the shorter windows among the states on this site. For a minor, the period tolls during minority. Claims against government entities are subject to West Virginia's governmental liability framework. Early engagement with a West Virginia dog bite attorney is especially important given the two-year window.
Kanawha-Charleston Humane Association (304-342-1576) handles animal control for the Charleston metro. The animal control report creates the primary public record of the incident and initiates the quarantine.
West Virginia has no statewide breed preemption. Individual municipalities may enact breed restrictions. Homeowners and renters insurance policies may carry breed exclusions — confirming coverage is an early investigation step.
| Liability rule | Strict liability under W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 for both dog owners and those who harbor a dog. Harboring theory can extend liability to landlords. Modified comparative fault with a 51% bar. Two-year statute of limitations. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | West Virginia Dog Bite StatuteW. Va. Code § 19-20-13 |
| Deadline to file | 2 years from the date of the injuryW. Va. Code § 55-2-12 |
| If the victim is a child | The limitations period tolls during minority. A minor bitten before age 18 generally has until two years after their 18th birthday to file. |
| Shared fault | Modified comparative fault — 51% barW. Va. Code § 55-7-13a |
| Cap on pain & suffering | No statutory cap on non-economic damages in dog bite cases against private defendants in West Virginia. |
| Does breed matter? | No statewide breed preemption. Individual municipalities may enact breed-specific ordinances. Homeowners and renters insurance policies may carry breed exclusions. |
| Dangerous dog law | W. Va. Code § 19-20-1 et seq. (dog control). Animal control is largely municipal. |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
What is West Virginia's dog bite law?
W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 imposes strict liability on any person who owns or harbors a dog for injuries the dog causes. No proof of prior dangerous propensity or owner knowledge is required — the strict liability rule applies from the first attack.
West Virginia's dog bite statute — W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 — provides that any person owning or harboring a dog shall be liable for any damages done by that dog to a person. The statute is a strict liability provision: it requires no proof that the owner knew the dog was dangerous before the attack. There is no first-bite rule in West Virginia.
The statute's language covers both the 'owner' and the 'harborer' of the dog. A harborer is anyone who keeps, maintains, or allows a dog to remain on their property with their knowledge and acquiescence — which has been interpreted to extend liability to landlords who knew a tenant kept a dangerous dog on the premises and failed to require its removal. This harboring theory is especially important in West Virginia's rental housing market, where many dog bite incidents occur at rented properties.
West Virginia has no statewide breed preemption. Individual municipalities may enact breed-specific ordinances. Homeowners and renters insurance policies may carry breed exclusions — confirming coverage is an important early step in any West Virginia dog bite case.
Who can be held liable in a West Virginia dog bite case?
Both the dog's owner and anyone who "harbors" the dog — including landlords who knowingly allowed a dangerous dog to remain on their property — can be held liable under W. Va. Code § 19-20-13. This harboring theory is particularly important in rental property cases.
West Virginia's § 19-20-13 extends strict liability to the 'harborer' of a dog — not only the registered owner. West Virginia courts have interpreted harboring broadly: a landlord who knows a tenant keeps a dog on the premises and takes no steps to remove it when the dog's dangerous behavior becomes known may qualify as a harborer. This theory creates a second category of potential defendant in rental-property cases, where the landlord may carry commercial general liability insurance with higher limits than the tenant's renters policy.
The harboring theory turns on knowledge: the landlord must have known the dog was kept on the premises, and ideally must have had some notice of the dog's dangerous propensity, to be held as a harborer for purposes of § 19-20-13. A landlord who had received prior complaints about the dog from other tenants, had documented the dangerous dog in an incident report, or had been warned by animal control, is in a much weaker position to escape harboring liability than one who had no such notice.
In practice, establishing harboring liability against a landlord requires the same kind of prior knowledge evidence that a one-bite rule case would require — but against the landlord rather than the registered owner. When a West Virginia dog bite occurs at a rental property, identifying the landlord and investigating their prior knowledge of the dog is an important early step alongside the standard strict liability analysis.
How does West Virginia's comparative fault rule apply?
West Virginia uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar under § 55-7-13a. A plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half their damages — the bar falls at more than 50%. Provocation can reduce the award as comparative fault or serve as a complete defense.
West Virginia's comparative fault framework — § 55-7-13a — bars recovery when the plaintiff's contributory fault is 'greater than' the defendant's total fault. At exactly 50% plaintiff fault, the plaintiff is not barred and still recovers half their damages. The bar falls at more than 50% — which is one percentage point more favorable than Oklahoma and Utah, where exactly 50% plaintiff fault eliminates the entire claim.
Provocation is the most common comparative fault argument in West Virginia dog bite cases. Deliberate, targeted conduct toward the dog that causes it to react can serve as a complete defense or be assessed as comparative fault to reduce the award. Accidental contact, approaching the dog to pet it, or startling the dog typically falls short of deliberate provocation and is assessed at most as partial comparative fault.
West Virginia's modified-51% rule means that cases with disputed pre-attack conduct — where the victim approached the dog, reached toward it, or was interacting with it — still provide a recovery path as long as the plaintiff's fault does not exceed 50%. The two-percentage-point difference between West Virginia's 51% bar and Oklahoma's 50% bar is narrow in law but meaningful in borderline cases.
What compensation is available in a West Virginia dog bite case?
West Virginia victims may recover economic damages — medical bills, lost wages, future care costs — and non-economic damages including pain and suffering, permanent scarring, and emotional distress. There is no statutory cap on non-economic damages against private defendants.
Economic damages in a West Virginia dog bite case cover all documented financial losses: emergency and follow-up medical care, surgery, physical therapy, lost wages during recovery, and projected future medical costs. West Virginia has no statutory cap on economic damages against private defendants.
Non-economic damages — pain and suffering, emotional distress, permanent disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life — are fully recoverable without a statutory cap against private defendants in West Virginia. Serious attacks producing permanent facial or hand scarring, post-traumatic stress, or functional impairment support significant non-economic awards.
The harboring theory adds a potential second recovery source in rental-property cases. A landlord who qualifies as a harborer under § 19-20-13 is jointly liable alongside the registered owner, and the landlord's commercial general liability insurance — if any — is an additional recovery pool. Identifying all potential defendants early is especially important in West Virginia cases arising from rental properties.
What is the statute of limitations for a West Virginia dog bite claim?
Two years from the date of injury under W. Va. Code § 55-2-12. For a minor, the period tolls during minority. Claims against government entities require written notice within the applicable governmental notice period — typically within one to two years — under West Virginia's governmental liability framework.
West Virginia's personal injury statute of limitations — § 55-2-12 — provides a two-year filing deadline from the date of the injury. Two years is a relatively short window; Oregon, New Mexico, and West Virginia are among the two-year states on this site, compared to Utah's four years or Nebraska's four years. Early engagement with a West Virginia dog bite attorney is especially important to preserve evidence quality and meet the deadline.
For a minor victim, the limitations period tolls during minority — a child bitten at any age generally has until two years after their 18th birthday to file. The critical exception is claims against governmental entities. Claims against the State of West Virginia and its subdivisions are governed by the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, which imposes specific procedures that must be followed before suit may be filed against a government defendant.
The two-year deadline creates real time pressure for gathering the evidence a strong West Virginia case requires — particularly in harboring-theory cases where prior notice to the landlord must be documented. The practical recommendation is to engage a West Virginia dog bite attorney within weeks of the attack, not years.
What should I do immediately after a West Virginia dog bite?
Seek medical care, photograph the wound, collect the owner's information, and report the bite to local animal control immediately. If the attack occurred at a rental property, identify the landlord — they may be liable as a harborer. Do not give recorded statements without speaking to a West Virginia attorney.
West Virginia's strict liability statute eliminates the need to prove prior owner knowledge — but gathering evidence immediately still determines case quality. Seek medical care first. Photograph the wound before treatment if possible and at 24-hour and one-week intervals. Collect the dog owner's full name, address, and homeowners or renters insurance information at the scene.
Report the bite to local animal control: Kanawha-Charleston Humane Association (304-342-1576) for Charleston; City of Huntington Animal Control (304-696-5544) for Huntington; Monongalia County Animal Control (304-291-7250) for Morgantown. The animal control report creates the public record of the incident, initiates the quarantine, and may contain prior complaints at the same address.
If the attack occurred at a rental property, identify the landlord or property management company immediately. Request any prior incident reports, tenant complaints about the dog, or animal control notices the landlord may have received. West Virginia's harboring theory can extend strict liability to the landlord if they had knowledge the dog was dangerous — and that prior knowledge evidence must be gathered while it is still available.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means West Virginia has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in West Virginia |
|---|---|---|
| Not an owner or harborer | Available | A landlord with no knowledge the tenant kept a dog, or with no opportunity to act, may argue they did not harbor within the statute's meaning. |
| Provocation | Available | Deliberate conduct toward the dog can eliminate the § 19-20-13 claim or be assessed as comparative fault. |
| Comparative fault above 50% | Available | At more than 50% plaintiff fault, recovery is completely barred. At exactly 50%, recovery survives at half the award. |
| Assumption of risk | Limited | Voluntary knowing approach to a dangerous dog may be assessed as comparative fault. |
Modified comparative fault — 51% bar. A plaintiff whose fault is "greater than" the defendant's total fault is barred. At exactly 50% plaintiff fault, recovery is NOT barred — the plaintiff recovers half their damages. The bar falls at 51% or above.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 51% or more, West Virginia law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in West Virginia
Two years from the date of injury under W. Va. Code § 55-2-12. For a minor, the period tolls during minority — a child bitten at any age generally has until two years after their 18th birthday to file. Claims against West Virginia government entities are governed by the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, which requires specific procedural compliance before suit may be filed against a government defendant. A bite by a state police K-9, a county animal control dog, or any government employee's animal during employment must be identified against those procedures promptly — missing applicable notice requirements bars the government-entity claim regardless of how much of the two-year general 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 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 (this page) | 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. |
West Virginia dog bite questions, answered
The questions West Virginia readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Does West Virginia require proof of a prior bite?
No. W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 is a strict liability statute — both the owner and anyone who harbors a dog are liable without any requirement to prove prior knowledge of dangerous propensities.
Can a landlord be held liable for a tenant's dog bite?
Yes, potentially. § 19-20-13 extends strict liability to anyone who "harbors" a dog — which courts have interpreted to include landlords who knowingly allowed a dangerous dog to remain on their property.
What is the filing deadline for a West Virginia dog bite case?
Two years from the date of injury under W. Va. Code § 55-2-12. For minors, the period tolls during minority. Government entity claims are subject to the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act's procedural requirements.
How does West Virginia's comparative fault rule work?
Modified comparative fault with a 51% bar under § 55-7-13a. A plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half their damages — the bar falls at more than 50%.
Key Takeaways for West Virginia Dog Bite Victims
West Virginia 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 West Virginia settlement amounts or connect with a West Virginia dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 — West Virginia primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice