Animal Attacks
In Texas, Animals are regulated by Title 10: Health and Safety of Animals, Chapter 822, Regulation of Animals.
Subchapter A contains provisions that deal with Dogs That Attack Persons or Are a Danger to Persons; Animal control authority in Certain Municipalities; Seizure of a Dog Causing Death or Serious Bodily Injury to a Person; Hearings about a Dog Causing Death or Serious Bodily Injury to a Person; Potential Offenses by Persons because of an Attack by a Dog; Defenses to Prosecution; Penalties for Owners of Dogs Running at Large; and many other regulations that deal with this subject of owning dogs.
Subchapter D, Dangerous Dogs, defines “dangerous dog” as a dog that (1) makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own, or (2) commits unprovoked attacks in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person.
See Sample Petition Regarding Dog Attack in Texas under Articles Section of the website.
In Arkansas, a dog bite victim can seek to recover compensation under the doctrines of negligence, scienter and intentional tort. If a county or municipality has an ordinance, the violation of an ordinance could result in strict liability. There is a criminal statute that can be used to require a defendant to pay the victim's medical bills (but not full compensation for pain, suffering, scarring, loss of income, and other damages). There is no dog bite statute so, except in counties with a strict liability dog bite ordinance, this is a "one bite state." In other words, if your dog has bitten once before then you are placed on notice that your dog has dangerous propensities.
The traditional doctrine that makes a person liable for harm inflicted by a domestic animal is referred to as "scienter" (the Latin word for "knowingly"), "common law strict liability," and "the one bite rule." As it applies to dog bites, this doctrine holds that a victim can recover compensation from the owner, harborer or keeper of a dog if (a) the dog previously bit a person or acted like it wanted to, and (b) the defendant was aware of the dog's previous conduct. If either of those conditions are not met, however, this doctrine prevents the victim from recovering anything.
The doctrine of negligence is well established in the law. Under Arkansas law, in order to prevail on a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Negligence per se is a doctrine that can help a victim recover compensation if the bite happened because the dog owner violated a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted for people's safety. Examples include a violation of a leash law, a law prohibiting dogs from being at large, or a law prohibiting dogs from trespassing. The violation could be considered to be evidence of negligence.
Although Arkansas does not have a civil dog bite statute, it does have a criminal statute that can assist a dog bite victim in receiving compensation for medical expenses. Arkansas Code section 5-62-125 makes it a misdemeanor to negligently allow a vicious dog to inflict serious injury or death upon a person. This criminal statute permits a court or jury to require the defendant to pay for the victim's medical bills. In a sense, therefore, Arkansas has some sort of dog bite statute that protects victims.