Dog Bite Cases: Strict Liability vs. the One Bite Rule

Depending on the state and the circumstances of an animal’s attack against another person, Boston dog bite causes often involve strict responsibility or the one bite rule. To avoid future repercussions, it’s critical for anybody involved in the incident to understand the differences between the two options.

The One Bite Rule Explained

When it comes to the one-bite rule, it’s important to understand several circumstances that could influence whether or not the dog bites someone else. This can involve being conscious of a dog’s violent tendencies, whether they are inherited or attributable to the animal’s temperament or breed. These claims also depend on whether the dog was placid until someone antagonized it or if the owner was assaulted. Because of the one-bite rule, an owner who knows their dog is capable of biting people without provocation may be exposed to more culpability. When the dog is with other people, the owner must take the required precautions and procedures to keep everyone safe.

What Is the Definition of Strict Liability?

When a dog attacks someone, the owner is almost always held strictly liable for the attack under the doctrine of strict responsibility. Strict liability means that even if the dog’s owner tried to prevent the bite or took precautions to lessen the likelihood of the animal biting someone, the court will nonetheless hold the person responsible for the bite. A dog walker, someone who lives with the animal, or someone house sitting are examples of these happenings. There may be a limit on how many people can have access to the dog, depending on state and municipal regulations.

No matter what the circumstances are, strict liability may or may not apply. If the owner is made a defendant in court, he or she will have to defend the plaintiff’s case. If the victim did not provoke the dog to attack and was legally present at the time of the bite, he or she has a strong case. Any deviance from these two standards could give the defendant a valid claim against the strict responsibility restrictions. Any prior knowledge of the dog’s potential for biting has no bearing on the situation.

Differences in the Laws

While strict liability can hold anyone accountable for the bite, the one-bite rule differs in that the human must have anticipated the animal would bite them. People with dogs who are not owners may have no idea that their pet has vicious tendencies until they are attacked by it. The one-bite rule holds the person liable for damages and compensation if the person was aware of the animal’s aggressiveness or violence toward others or a specific individual prior to the bite. The dog may only attack men, and the owner is aware of this.

Legal assistance in cases with strict liability or one-bite rules

A lawyer will be required to assist the victim in suing the perpetrator no matter how the injury is sustained or whatever regulation applies. In the courtroom, having a lawyer on his or her side will assist him or her negotiate the greatest possible settlement with the person who caused the problem.


Related Posts