Washington DC Dog Bite Law and Settlements

Dog bites can lead to severe physical and emotional injuries, and understanding the laws surrounding these incidents is crucial. Washington D.C.’s laws regarding dog bites are somewhat unique, as the District operates under a mix of “strict liability” and the “one bite rule.”

Dog Bite Law in Washington, D.C.

If you were bitten or attacked by a dog in Washington, D.C., you are likely dealing with not just physical pain, but questions about who is responsible and what your rights are. D.C. has specific laws and regulations that deal with dog bite liability, dangerous dog classifications, and owner responsibilities. Understanding how these rules work can help you take the next step in holding the right party accountable.

Strict Liability for Dog Owners

In most dog bite cases, Washington, D.C., follows a strict liability rule. This means that dog owners can be held financially responsible for injuries their dog causes, even if the dog had no history of aggression. If you were bitten without provocation and in a place where you had a legal right to be, the owner may be liable regardless of whether they were negligent.

There are exceptions, however. A dog owner might not be liable if you were trespassing, provoking the dog, or if the dog was defending itself or its owner. The legal standard is articulated in the District of Columbia Dangerous Dog Statute (§ 8-1902).

What Makes a Dog “Dangerous” Under D.C. Law?

A dog will be classified as “dangerous” under DC dog bite laws if it bites or attacks a person or another animal without being provoked, or even if it behaves in a menacing way, like charging at someone. If there is concern about a dog’s behavior, the Mayor’s office is authorized to investigate and determine whether the dog should be formally classified as dangerous or potentially dangerous.

Once that classification is made, the dog’s owner must comply with strict legal requirements, which include:

• Registering the dog with city authorities
• Securing liability insurance
• Keeping the dog confined in a locked enclosure
• Displaying warning signs on the property

For a full explanation of these requirements, see § 8-1904 of the D.C. Code.

Penalties for Irresponsible Dog Ownership

Owners who fail to follow D.C. laws regarding dangerous dogs face serious consequences. Penalties for non-compliance include:

• Fines up to $500 and jail time up to 90 days for a first offense
• Enhanced penalties for repeat violations
• Fines up to $10,000 if a dangerous dog causes serious injury or death

These penalties are outlined in D.C. Code § 8-1906.

Leash Laws and Public Space Rules

Beyond dangerous dog laws, D.C. also enforces general leash and animal control laws. All dogs must be leashed when in public unless they are in a designated dog park. Letting your dog roam off-leash or fail to clean up after it in public spaces can result in fines and civil penalties.

The full set of rules can be found in the D.C. Municipal Regulations, Title 24, § 900.

Can Landlords Be Held Liable?

In some dog bite cases, victims wonder if a landlord can be held responsible for a tenant’s dog. In Washington, D.C., courts generally hold that landlords are not liable unless there has been an official determination that the dog is dangerous and the landlord failed to take appropriate action.

Without this administrative finding, liability typically remains with the dog’s owner.

Act Quickly — You May Be Running Out of Time

Even if your case seems strong, it is important to act quickly. The Washington D.C. statute of limitations for personal injury cases gives you only three years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit. If you miss that deadline, you could lose your right to recover compensation entirely.

If you were bitten by a dog in D.C., a personal injury lawyer in Washington, D.C. can help you understand your rights, gather evidence, and protect your claim before critical deadlines pass.

Defining “At Large”

A critical factor in D.C.’s dog bite law is determining whether the dog was “at large” at the time of the incident. A dog is considered to be at large when it is off the owner’s premises and not under the immediate control, by leash or otherwise, of the owner or another capable and responsible person.

Section 8-1808 states, “No owner of an animal shall allow the animal to go at large.” The term “at large” is defined in Section 8-1801(a)(1)(A) as “… any animal found off the premises of its owner and neither leashed nor otherwise under the immediate control of a person capable of physically restraining it.”

Proving a Dog Bite Case in D.C.

The injured party must prove several elements in a dog bite case under the one-bite rule:

• The defendant is the owner of the dog.
• The dog had vicious or dangerous tendencies.
• The owner knew or should have known about the dog’s vicious or dangerous tendencies.
• The injury resulted from the dog’s vicious or dangerous tendencies.
• It’s important to note that even if all these elements are proven, the owner can still defend themselves by proving that the victim provoked the dog or was trespassing on the owner’s property at the time of the incident.

Under the strict liability rule, the injured party only needs to prove that the dog was at large and that the defendant is the owner of the dog.

The Role of Animal Control

Animal control officers in D.C. have the power to impound any dog found running at large. They can also impound any dog, whether at large or not, if they believe the dog is dangerous and poses a threat to public safety.

If a dog has been declared dangerous, it must be kept securely indoors or in a locked pen or structure at all times, and it must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash when outside this enclosure.

Possible Defenses in Dog Bite Cases

In Washington, D.C., dog owners can assert several legal defenses in response to a dog bite claim. While the District has rules that often favor the injured party—especially under strict liability or negligence theories, we see defense lawyer fighting to avoid liability using these most common defenses raised by dog owners in D.C. dog bite cases:

1. Trespassing

One of the strongest defenses a dog owner may raise is that the injured person was illegally on the property at the time of the attack. If the person bitten was a trespasser—meaning they entered private property without permission—the owner is generally not liable for the dog’s actions. In legal terms, property owners owe less of a duty of care to trespassers, especially if the dog was confined within a yard or home and the injured person had no legal right to be there. However, exceptions can apply, particularly when children are involved.

2. Provocation

Under D.C. law, provocation significantly undermines a dog bite claim. If the plaintiff was teasing, hitting, or otherwise provoking the dog before the bite occurred, the court may find that the dog was reacting in a defensive or instinctive manner. In these cases, the owner may not be held liable because the dog was not acting aggressively without cause. This defense often turns on witness statements or surveillance footage that can confirm the nature of the interaction between the dog and the injured person.

3. Assumption of Risk (and contributory negligence, which we will get to)

The defense of assumption of risk applies when the person bitten was fully aware of the dog’s history of aggression or dangerous behavior and voluntarily chose to interact with the dog anyway. For example, if a person was warned multiple times about the dog’s tendency to bite but continued to pet or approach the animal, a court might find that the individual accepted the risk and thereby limited the owner’s liability. This defense can be especially relevant in cases involving dog walkers, sitters, or visitors familiar with the dog’s behavior.

Contributory Negligence and Dog Bite Lawsuits in D.C.

In the District of Columbia, dog bite claims and personal injury cases are governed by the principle of “contributory negligence.” This is one of the harshest negligence laws in the United States and can significantly impact the outcome of a dog bite case in DC.

Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, if a victim is found to be even 1% at fault for their injuries, they are barred from recovering any damages. This principle is in contrast to comparative negligence, where a victim’s recovery is merely reduced by their percentage of fault. Most jurisdictions across the U.S. follow some form of comparative negligence, but the District of Columbia, along with a few states like Maryland and Virginia, still abide by the contributory negligence rule. So dog bite lawyers defending these cases really lean into contributory negligence whenever they can.

This contributory negligence rule can be invoked in several situations in dog bite cases. For instance, if the victim was bitten after provoking the dog or ignored clear warning signs of the dog’s aggressive behavior, they could be deemed to have contributed to their injury and thus be barred from recovering any damages.

There are some exceptions to the contributory negligence rule. The most significant of these is the “last clear chance” doctrine. This exception applies if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to do so. In a dog bite case, this could mean that even if the victim provoked the dog initially, the owner could have prevented the bite but failed to act.

Moreover, the doctrine of contributory negligence is generally not applied to children under a certain age (often around 5 years old). The law recognizes that young children may not fully understand the consequences of their actions, particularly around animals.

The Role of Homeowners or Renters’ Insurance

Many homeowners or renters’ insurance policies cover dog bite liability legal expenses up to the liability limits. If the dog bite attack claim exceeds the limit, the dog owner is personally responsible for all damages above that amount, including legal expenses. It’s essential for dog owners to review their insurance policy and understand the coverage it provides for dog bites.

The problem is there are so many renters in the District of Columbia.  So virtually every homeowners’  insurance policy covers dog bites on and off the owner’s property, renters insurance is less common and may or may not cover dog bites depending on the policy.

Hiring a Washington, DC Dog Bite Lawyer

Miller & Zois is one of the top plaintiffs’ dog bite law firms in the DC, MD, and VA areas. We handle all types of serious injury cases in Washington, D.C. If you have been injured, call our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free, no-obligation consultation.