Call Now
713-521-0059
No. Texas has no dog bite statute and no rule that an owner pays automatically. You can usually recover in one of two ways. One is strict liability, if the owner knew or had reason to know the dog was dangerous. The other is ordinary negligence, if the owner failed to use reasonable care in handling or restraining the dog.
What cannot wait is your record of what happened. Get medical care and tell your provider it was a dog. Report the bite to animal control, photograph your wound, the dog, the fence and the gate, and write down who saw it. The dog’s history and the owner’s insurance policy often matter most, and the details fade quickly. Call 713-521-0059.
You may have heard that Texas is a “one bite” state and concluded that a dog gets one free attack. That is a rough shorthand for a real rule, and it is misleading in both directions. It does not mean an owner escapes the first time, because a negligence claim does not require any prior bite at all.
It also does not mean a prior bite is required for strict liability. What matters is the owner’s knowledge of dangerous propensity, which a prior bite proves but so do other things.
Most Texas cases are the second kind. Your negligence claim needs no prior knowledge; the question is whether the owner used reasonable care. Common examples are a gate left open, a fence known to be broken, or a dog off leash where an ordinance requires one. Others are a dog left with someone unable to control it, or a dog allowed loose around a child.
Local ordinances matter here. Houston and Harris County both regulate restraint and running at large, and violation of an ordinance designed to prevent this kind of harm supports your negligence argument.
In Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974), the Texas Supreme Court adopted a rule. A possessor of a domestic animal that the possessor has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class is subject to liability for the harm it causes.
Two consequences follow that matter to you. Ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense to a strict liability claim of this kind. Voluntary assumption of the risk requires a real choice. In Marshall the plaintiff was found not to have assumed the risk. He faced only a choice of evils, both wrongfully imposed on him by the defendant, and so had no free choice of alternatives.
What proves knowledge is broader than a prior bite. It can be prior lunging or snapping, a “Beware of Dog” sign, animal control complaints, or a dangerous dog determination. It can also be warnings the owner gave to visitors, statements to neighbors, kennel or veterinary records noting aggression, or a prior attack on another animal.
Not directly. Chapter 822 of the Health and Safety Code is not a civil cause of action; it is a regulatory and criminal scheme. Subchapter A allows seizure and a hearing after a dog causes death or serious bodily injury.
Section 822.005 makes it a criminal offense in two situations. One is an owner who, with criminal negligence, fails to secure a dog that then makes an unprovoked attack. The attack must cause serious bodily injury or death somewhere other than the owner’s real property, motor vehicle or boat. The other is an owner who knows the dog has been determined dangerous, where the dog makes an unprovoked attack outside a secure enclosure that causes serious bodily injury or death.
Subchapter D sets up the dangerous dog determination, registration and restraint requirements, and those records are evidence in your civil case. A prior dangerous dog finding can be close to conclusive proof of the knowledge that strict liability requires. Ask animal control for the dog’s history early.
Usually the owner’s homeowner or renter insurance pays you, rather than the owner personally, because most homeowner policies cover dog bite liability. Many policies exclude specific breeds or any dog with a prior bite, so the exclusions need to be read early in your claim.
A landlord is not automatically liable for a tenant’s dog. Liability generally requires that the landlord knew of the dog’s dangerous propensity and had the ability to control the premises or remove the danger. A business that allows dogs, a groomer, a boarding facility or a dog park operator is judged on its own conduct.
Your claim against the owner is also not, as is often written, a premises liability claim, because a dog is not a condition of the land. A separate premises claim can exist alongside it, for instance against an apartment complex that knew about a dangerous dog on the property and did nothing. Your claim against the owner stands on its own footing.
Scarring is the damage that lasts. Bites to the face, scalp and hands are common in children and often require staged reconstruction over years, so valuing your claim on the emergency room bill alone leaves the future surgery out.
Damages commonly recovered in a dog bite claim include:
Under Section 41.0105, recovery of medical expenses is measured by the amount actually paid or incurred, not the amount billed. The reasonable cost and necessity of your care can be proven by affidavit under Section 18.001, unless a controverting affidavit is properly served. The affidavit does not prove causation. Exemplary damages are capped by statute under Section 41.008 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, with exceptions.
The psychological injury is real and compensable. Post-traumatic symptoms after an animal attack, particularly in children, are frequently the most disabling part of the case and the part most often undocumented. Your treatment records are what make it recoverable.
Under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, you recover nothing if you are found more than 50 percent responsible (Section 33.001). Otherwise, your award is reduced by your percentage of responsibility (Section 33.012), even at exactly 50 percent. Expect an argument that you provoked the dog, entered the yard, or ignored a sign. On a strict liability theory, Marshall holds ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense, which is one reason the theory is worth developing where your facts support it.
Under Section 16.003(a), suit generally must be brought within two years after the day the claim accrues, which is usually the date of the injury. Under Section 16.001, that time does not run while the injured person is younger than 18 or of unsound mind, if that was true when the claim accrued. This matters if your child was bitten, because many serious dog bite injuries are to children.
Every statute and case linked above was read at its primary source. Texas statutes change every legislative session and case law is constantly changing.
This page is general information about Texas law. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Your evidence is scattered. Animal control holds the bite report and the dog’s history, and neighbors and visitors hold what the owner said and what they saw. The insurer holds the policy and its exclusions. Photographs of your wound taken over weeks show healing and scarring that a single emergency room visit cannot.
We start with the dog’s history and the insurance policy, because together they decide whether there is a claim and who pays it. We request the animal control file, identify the owner, any landlord and any business involved, and read the policy exclusions before anyone relies on them.
Schiffer Law Firm is a Houston personal injury firm with 50 plus years of combined experience representing injured people across Texas.
There is no charge to talk, and no attorney’s fee unless there is a recovery.
Call 713-521-0059.
No. Texas has no civil dog bite statute. Recovery is based on common law strict liability where the owner knew or had reason to know the dog was dangerous, or on ordinary negligence.
That phrase is a rough shorthand. A prior bite is strong proof that the owner knew the dog was dangerous, but it is not required. A negligence claim needs no prior bite at all, and knowledge can be proven by prior lunging, warnings, signs, complaints or a dangerous dog determination.
Usually the owner's homeowner or renter insurance. Many policies exclude particular breeds or any dog with a prior bite, so the policy language should be checked early.
Sometimes. A landlord is not automatically responsible for a tenant's dog. Liability generally requires that the landlord knew of the dog's dangerous propensity and had the ability to control the premises or remove the danger.
In most cases, within two years after the day the claim accrues under Section 16.003(a), which is usually the date of the injury. If the injured person was a child when the claim accrued, Section 16.001 generally stops the clock until the child turns 18.
Yes, in most cases. The report creates the record of the dog's conduct, and prior complaints, prior bites and any dangerous dog determination are the evidence that can turn a negligence case into a strict liability case.