The "One Bite Rule" Does Not Exist in Texas

Many states have a “one bite rule,” which means that an owner cannot be held liable for a dog’s attack unless the dog has a history of biting another person. Texas does not follow this rule.

Two primary claims can be made against owners in dog bite cases. The most common claim is a negligence claim. Like other personal injury claims, for a negligence claim, you must prove that the dog owner (or person responsible for the dog at the time) failed to use ordinary care, and that the failure to use ordinary care caused your injuries.

The most common allegation that you would make in these claims is that the dog owner failed to use ordinary care by failing to properly restrain the dog. In fact, many local governments in Texas, including both the City of Austin and Travis County, have laws requiring dog owners to have their dogs restrained at all times — Austin has some exceptions for recognized dog parks.

However, failing to properly restrain the dog is not the only way a dog owner may fail to use ordinary care. Other common situations occur when a dog owner may be negligent for failing to properly socialize the dog, failing to properly handle the dog or failing to properly train the dog.   

The second common claim is called a strict liability claim. Under a strict liability claim, a person is strictly liable for the actions of the dog, or other domesticated animal, if (1) The person is the owner or the dog or possessor—someone keeping or watching the animal for the owner; (2) the dog had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class; (3) the person knew or had reason to know the dog had dangerous propensities; and (4) those propensities were a producing cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Obviously, the biggest difference between these two claims is that a strict liability claim requires proof that the dog owner knew the dog was dangerous, while a negligence claim does not have that requirement. However, we try to prove that the dog owner knew the dog was dangerous regardless of which claim we’re making. Even for a negligence claim, if you can prove that the dog owner knew the dog was dangerous and still failed to properly handle, train or restrain the dog, the results will be better.

You do not need to have evidence that the dog bit someone to show that the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. The most common factors demonstrating that a dog owner knew or should have known their animal may be vicious include, but are not limited to:

• Size of animal – the larger the animal, the greater the risk of injuries
• Animal breed – such as Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Huskies
• Aggressive behavior – frequent snapping and biting shows owner knowledge
• Animal fights with other animals – may demonstrate vicious nature
• Frequently confined animal – may indicate a dangerous animal
• Is the dog kept outside – keeping a poorly behaved dog outside allows the dog to practice bad behaviors
• Dog kept on a chain – chaining an animal will increase aggressiveness, and it is illegal in most states
• Muzzling – may indicate a dangerous dog
• Beware of dog warning signs on property – may indicate owner knows dog is dangerous
• Owner received complaints about dog – but did nothing or not enough
• Owner warning strangers about animal – may indicate animal might cause harm to others
• Why the animal is kept – is it a trained guard dog?