Dog Bite Liability in Arizona

If you have been injured by a dog or another animal, an attorney may help you recover medical costs caused by your injures.  Contact our office today at 480-246-8050 for your FREE CASE EVALUATION.

Arizona has a statute that imposes strict liability for dog bites. This means that a victim does not have to prove negligence on behalf of the owner or person in control of the dog. The only defense to it is provocation. This concept will be explained further herein. Claims can also be brought under common law and negligence theories.

Statute of Limitations: Arizona defines the time in which a case must be filed or recovery will be barred, otherwise known as the Statute of Limitations. There are two separate statutes of limitations that cover dog bites in Arizona.
1. A.R.S. § 11-1020 and A.R.S. § 11-1025, which provide a 1-year statute of limitations based upon the language in A.R.S. § 12-541. Therefore, a claimant that is injured by a dog must settle the case or file a complaint in the proper court within one year of the dog bite under these statutes in order for the owner to be strictly liable.
2. Common law and negligence claims have a two (2) year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-542, however, you will have to prove that the owner was negligent under this theory.

Statutory or Strict Liability:
1. Dogs At Large. A.R.S. § 11-1020 provides that: “Injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog while at large shall be the full responsibility of the dog owner or person or persons responsible for the dog when such damages were inflicted.”
a. “At large” is defined as “being neither confined by an enclosure nor physically restrained by a leash.”
b. Although dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs, strict liability does not mean absolute liability. Strict liability removes the need to establish liability but does not remove the need to prove causation.
c. For example, the court has held that a stolen dog would be an unforeseeable, intervening act that would prevent liability being imposed for an injury caused by the stolen dog.

2. Dogs Not At Large. A.R.S. § 11-1025 provides that: “The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s knowledge of its viciousness.”
a. In Arizona, there is no “one free bite” rule and the statute essentially makes the dog owner an insurer of the dog’s conduct unless the defendant is on the owner’s property unlawfully.
b. Lawful Presence. A.R.S. § 11-1026 defines the lawful presence requirement. In order to impose liability for a dog bite on private property, a person must be an invitee or guest, or be on the property pursuant to a legal duty imposed by state or federal statute or municipal ordinance. However courts have determined that this does not apply to members of the owner’s family even though they are there lawfully.

3. Police Dogs. No action for damages can be brought against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in the performance of their duties. However, in order for this to apply, the agency must have adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the work. The policy must address:
a. In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect’s involvement in criminal activity;
b. In the investigation of a crime or possible crime;
c. In the execution of a warrant;
d. In the defense of a peace officer or another person.
If your case involves the use of a police/military dog this statute must be read in conjunction with other statutes involving the justifiable use of force and whether the police or military officers acted appropriately. Arizona appellate courts have not yet addressed liability of a governmental agency for a dog bite under this statute, so it is not clear whether those statutes have any effect, unless of course you are a bystander.

Defenses to Strict Liability: Provocation is the only defense to a claim for damages or injury under A.R.S. § 11-1025 or A.R.S. § 11-1020. If a defendant claims the plaintiff provoked the dog the provocation can be intentional or unintentional and either caused by an adult or a young child. The proper question is whether the actions taken by the plaintiff would amount to sufficient provocation.

Common Law Liability: The Arizona dog bite statutes do not replace common law liability regarding injury to another person and can be brought at the same time as the strict liability claims. If the owner knows or has reason to know the animal is dangerous and it is abnormal to the breed then the owner can be liable.

Defenses to Common Law Liability:
1. Unlawful Presence: A landowner is not subject to strict liability to someone who intentionally or negligently trespasses upon the land, for harm done to him by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal that the possessor keeps on the land, even though the trespasser had no reason to know that the animal is kept there.
2. Assumption of the Risk: Other defenses to common law liability may be available since Arizona courts follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 515 (1977), but only in the absence of contrary authority, which provides that the unreasonable assumption of the risk of harm relative to an animal is a defense to a claim for strict liability.

Landlord Dog Bite Liability: A landlord is generally not liable for damages caused by a tenant’s dog or other animal. The landlord is under no obligation to inspect the property to determine if a there are dangerous animals, However, if a landlord becomes aware of a dangerous animal and does nothing to remove the animal from the property, he or she can be held liable for damages caused by the dog.

Liability of Landlord Based Upon Third Party Liability: Arizona has not provided much case law in this area regarding whether a plaintiff can succeed in a claim based upon a contract, claiming third party beneficiary status. Arizona law requires that the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, which is a prerequisite to tort liability. The duty which gives rise to a tort claim, must be a general duty imposed by law apart from a contract rather than a contractual duty imposed by consent. If the duty is private, created by the terms of a contract, no remedy in tort is available for a defendant who breached a duty owed to a plaintiff.

At least one California court has rejected the imposition liability on the owner of property for injury caused by the tenant’s dog, where the plaintiff sued based upon duties owed under the CC&Rs of the homeowner’s association within which the leased premises was located.

Damages: Damages caused by a dog under the dog at large statute include property and personal injury damages that resulted from the conduct of the dog. However, damages arising out of the dog bite statute are limited to those caused by the dog bite.
Damages would include any permissible tort damages, and may include a loss of consortium (claimed by a parent where the child’s injury was a disfiguring scar from a dog bite).