The One Bite Rule in Texas Dog Bite Law

Dog bites can lead to severe physical and emotional injuries, leaving victims with lasting consequences. In Texas, legal responsibility for dog bites is governed largely by common law principles, including what is commonly referred to as the “One Bite Rule.” This rule determines whether and when a dog owner may be held liable for injuries caused by their pet. While Texas does not have a specific statute that outlines civil liability for dog bites, courts have long relied on the One Bite Rule and related negligence standards to resolve these cases.

The Common Law Origins of the One Bite Rule

The One Bite Rule originates from English common law and was adopted into American jurisprudence in the 19th century. The principle was famously articulated in the 1839 English case May v. Burdett, which held that a dog owner could be held strictly liable for a dog bite if they knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous propensities.

Texas courts have followed this traditional rule through case law rather than statute. The leading Texas case on this issue is Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974). In Marshall, the Texas Supreme Court formally adopted the One Bite Rule, holding that a dog owner may be strictly liable if:

1. The animal had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class; and
2. The owner knew or had reason to know of those propensities.

In practical terms, this means a dog does not necessarily get “one free bite,” but that a prior bite or aggressive behavior may establish the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s dangerous tendencies.

How the One Bite Rule Affects Dog Bite Lawsuits in Texas

Under the One Bite Rule, liability hinges on the dog owner’s prior knowledge. If the owner knew the dog had bitten someone before, or had displayed aggressive or threatening behavior, they may be held strictly liable for any resulting injury.

Establishing Strict Liability

Strict liability in a Texas dog bite case requires the injured party to prove the following elements:

• The dog had previously exhibited dangerous behavior, such as biting or attempting to bite
• The dog owner knew of this behavior
• The dog caused injury under circumstances similar to past aggressive incidents

When these elements are met, the victim does not need to prove negligence. Instead, the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s dangerous propensity is sufficient to impose liability.

When Strict Liability May Not Apply

If there is no evidence that the dog had a history of aggression, strict liability generally does not apply. In such cases, a victim must proceed under a negligence theory. To succeed in a negligence claim, the injured person must show:

• The dog owner had a duty to exercise reasonable care in controlling the animal
• The owner breached that duty
• The breach proximately caused the injury

Negligence claims often focus on whether the dog was properly restrained or whether the owner violated local leash laws or ordinances.

When Strict Liability May Still Apply Despite No Prior Bite

Importantly, the One Bite Rule does not require a prior bite to establish liability. Evidence of any behavior suggesting a dangerous propensity may satisfy the rule. This could include:

• Prior instances of growling, lunging, or snapping at people
• Training as a guard or attack dog
• Complaints from neighbors or others about the dog’s behavior
• The owner’s own admissions about the dog’s temperament
  

In Marshall v. Ranne, the court found strict liability appropriate even though the pig in question had not bitten anyone before. The court held that the animal’s prior aggressive behavior gave the owner sufficient notice of its dangerous nature. Courts have applied this reasoning to dog bite cases as well.

Local Ordinances and Their Impact on Liability

Texas law does not preempt local governments from enacting animal control ordinances. Cities and counties may impose leash laws, muzzle requirements, or other safety regulations. Violating these ordinances may be considered evidence of negligence per se in a dog bite case. For example, if a city requires that dogs be leashed in public areas and a dog bite occurs while the animal is off-leash, that violation can help establish the owner’s negligence.

Accident lawyer who protects the rights of victims

If you have suffered injuries, call Attorney Dang to give the insurance companies a Bang!

Free consultation

Municipal codes may also define a “dangerous dog” and require owners to register such animals, carry special insurance, or follow containment protocols. Failure to comply with these laws can strengthen a victim’s case for damages.

Comparative Negligence in Dog Bite Claims

Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001. This means that if the victim is partially at fault for the incident, such as provoking the dog or ignoring posted warnings, their recovery may be reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault. However, if the victim is found to be more than 50 percent at fault, they may be barred from recovering any damages at all.

This rule often comes into play in situations where there is conflicting testimony about whether the dog was provoked, or whether the victim was lawfully present on the property where the bite occurred.

Special Considerations for Children

In Texas, children under the age of seven are generally presumed incapable of contributory negligence. This means that dog owners may be held liable even if the child unknowingly provoked the animal. Courts are more likely to impose strict standards of responsibility on dog owners when children are involved, especially in residential or public settings.

Potential Damages in a Dog Bite Case

Injured parties may seek a range of compensatory damages in a Texas dog bite claim, including:

• Medical expenses (past and future)
• Lost wages and reduced earning capacity
• Pain and suffering
• Disfigurement or scarring
• Emotional distress

In cases involving egregious conduct, punitive damages may be available, but only if there is clear and convincing evidence of gross negligence or willful disregard for safety.

Defenses Dog Owners May Raise

Dog owners often raise several defenses in response to liability claims. Common defenses include:

• Lack of knowledge about the dog’s dangerous propensities
• Provocation by the injured party
• Trespassing by the victim
• Compliance with local animal control laws

Each defense must be evaluated in light of the facts of the case and the available evidence, such as witness testimony, veterinary records, and prior complaints.

Take Legal Action After a Dog Bite Injury in Texas

If you have been bitten or injured by a dog in Texas, do not wait to understand your legal rights. The One Bite Rule and other liability standards can make a significant difference in your ability to recover compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more. Proving liability often requires swift action to gather evidence, document injuries, and evaluate the dog’s history.

At Dang Law Group, we have the experience and legal knowledge to build a strong case on your behalf. Our team will assess whether strict liability or negligence applies and pursue every avenue to seek the justice you deserve.

Call Dang Law Group today to schedule a free consultation with a personal injury attorney who understands Texas dog bite law and will fight for your recovery.

Information verified by lawyer Loc Dang

Loc Dang is a founder and member of our legal team. In this blog, Attorney Dang shares his expertise to guide accident victims.