Dog Bite Cases
Accidents
Michigan Law Protects The Victims of Dog Bites.
We are told that we should try to be the person our dogs think we are, and that is usually good advice; be friendly, warm, loving, helpful and protective. But what if someone else’s dog thinks we are hostile and dangerous? What if that dog attacks? Throughout the United States, laws dealing with dog attacks fall into two categories, the first requiring the owner to have prior knowledge of the dog’s violent/vicious tendencies.
This is cynically called the “one free bite rule”, because the owner will not usually be held liable, unless this has happened before; in other words, when it happens for the first time, they do not have to pay, and thus the bite is “free”. The other category are the “strict liability” states, including Michigan, which impose liability on dog owners, for bites and attacks, even if there has never been a prior violent history.
Read More
According to the CDC & the American Veterinary Medical Association, approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year in the US
20% of those dog bites become infected
Of those, around 800,000 dog bite victims, or just over 17%, have to seek medical care
Michigan ranks 7th in the Nation for dog bite incidents involving US Postal Service employees
There are no specific numbers for dog bites involving Michigan residents, but national research indicates a rate of 107 dog bite-related ER visits per 100,000 people. Applying that to Michigan’s population of 10.1 million people, that would imply around 10,800 dog bite-related ER visits in Michigan annually
For the year 2024, the last year for which data is available, there were 1,138 dog bite claims, or just over 10% of the anticipated number of incidents.
Of the dog bites resulting in claims, the average claim cost is over $63,000.00 each.
These are often quite significant events, and as you will see below, dog bite law in Michigan is a bit complicated, so you will need experienced counsel if a bite happens. Call Jon Frank at (586) 727-1900
A dog owner will not be liable if it can be shown that the bite victim somehow provoked the dog. That is the only defense to the statutory “strict liability” cause of action for dog bites. MCLA §287.351. There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes provocation; it should be judged on a case-by-case basis, which means it should be decided by a jury, at time of trial, and not by a judge on a Motion for Dismissal (aka Motion for Summary Disposition; see Civil Court Procedure page)
Examples of Provocation
Approaching an unfamiliar dog;
Hitting a dog;
Ignoring written warnings, or verbal warnings from dog owners (e.g., “Beware of Dog” sign);
Letting your dog antagonize an unfamiliar dog, without attempting to restrain your own animal;
Letting your child approach an unfamiliar dog (while sometimes unsuccessful, the provocation defense is often floated by defense attorneys, in cases where a young child approaches an animal that really is not “such a nice doggie”.
Anything else a defense attorney can convince a jury was sufficiently provocative conduct.
Non-ownership of the dog, is a defense only to the strict liability provisions of MCLA §287.351. For example, if you are babysitting a dog, while its owner is out-of-town, and (heaven forbid) the dog attacks someone on your property, you cannot be sued under the strict liability provisions of the statute, nor can you sue the dog-sitter under the statute. However, you can sue and be sued, under a theory of common-law negligence, which is preserved in Michigan law under MCLA §287.288.
In the event the dog is being kept by a non-owner, there is nothing that prevents you from claiming damages from both the owner, on a strict liability theory, and against the dog-sitter, on a common-law negligence theory.
Non-ownership of the dog, is a defense only to the strict liability provisions of MCLA §287.351. For example, if you are babysitting a dog, while its owner is out-of-town, and (heaven forbid) the dog attacks someone on your property, you cannot be sued under the strict liability provisions of the statute, nor can you sue the dog-sitter under the statute. However, you can sue and be sued, under a theory of common-law negligence, which is preserved in Michigan law under MCLA §287.288.
In the event the dog is being kept by a non-owner, there is nothing that prevents you from claiming damages from both the owner, on a strict liability theory, and against the dog-sitter, on a common-law negligence theory.
Why bother caring about these legal fine points? Because the owner might be collectible, while the “dog-sitter” is not, or vice versa. These legal fine points may mean the difference of collecting monetary damages, or collecting nothing at all.
None.
The “no liability to trespassing dog bite victims” also includes those persons who may have initially entered the property lawfully, but who remained with criminal/unlawful intent, on the property after they were supposed to leave.
Trespassing Dog
A few years ago, I handled a matter in which a neighbor’s dog entered my client’s property, and began attacking my client’s mother and some of her pets. In a case called Koivisto v Davis, 277 Mich App 492, 745 NW2d 824 (2008), the Court of Appeals held that even where a dog bite victim kicks the trespassing dog, in an effort to defend herself and her pets, there is no provocation, because the trespassing dog was already in a provoked state.
My client’s mother was actually not bitten, which might have raised some defenses, at least under the “strict liability” statute, MCLA §287.351. Sadly, the stress of the attacking dog was enough to give this poor lady a heart attack, which proved fatal.
Dropping a Ball Near a Dog
Unintentionally dropping a ball near a dog, while it was eating, was held to not constitute provocation.
Landlords’ Liability
Where a landlord merely rents out one of her properties/apartments to a dog owner, whose dog bites someone, there is no “strict liability”, under Szkodzinski v Griffin, 171 Mich App 711 (1988)
Frequently Asked Questions. Honest Answers.
We have all heard folks say that certain breeds of dogs are just, by virtue of their breed, dangerous animals; e.g., pit bulls. This may be untrue, and the dog’s violent tendencies may be a function of poor stewardship/management by the dog owner. I am not knowledgeable enough to offer an opinion, but there are various lists that point to various breeds as being more dangerous than others. I offer links to a couple here, without opinion as to their accuracy:
Dog Breeds Expert: Listing of 16 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds
List25.com: List of 25 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds
The Richest’s: World’s 10 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds
Again, I am not endorsing the accuracy of these lists, although some breeds, such as pit bulls and presa canario’s presence on this list should not surprise anyone.
Dangerous Dog Breeds and the Law
Does this mean that Michigan law recognizes that some breeds are dangerous by their very nature and breed? Actually, no. In fact, in one case, Taylor v Mobley, 279 Mich App 309; 760 NW2d 234 (2008), the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s ruling that a dog’s breed was irrelevant to the issue of damages, further holding that evidence of the dog’s breed may well be inadmissible under MRE 403, making inadmissible, otherwise admissible evidence that “is more prejudicial than probative”.
The value of a dog bite depends on:
how much damage the dog has done,
whether it is readily visible,
how significant or even grotesque the injury may be,
whether the dog bite may have interfered with the victim’s physical functioning and
whether the incident has left psychological scars, etc.
As with many of these issues, this will be a fact by fact, case by case analysis, that only an experienced attorney can advise you on. Give Jon Frank a call today.
Provocation.
Trespassing.
Initial lawful entry onto property, followed by proof of victim’s criminal/unlawful purpose for being on the property.
No damages. Just getting bitten, does not create a right to sue, or to make a claim. There must be a showing of damage to the bite victim.
