What Makes Owners Automatically Liable for Dog Bites in the Eyes of Arizona State Law?

While being on the wrong end of a dog bite is an incredibly traumatic experience, it’s good to know that when the terror of the situation subsides, Arizona state law is on your side. Unlike other states that follow the “one bite rule,” Arizona dog owners don’t get a free pass because their hound doesn’t have a history of biting people.

In Arizona, owners are held liable for dog bites, and you don’t have to prove that the owner knew their dog presented a threat to the public. You don’t need to prove that the dog was the culprit of other attacks or that the owner was negligent in the traditional sense. 

That said, the details surrounding the event still matter.

The Value of Arizona’s Strict Liability Statute for Dog Bite Victims

When it comes to dog bite cases, Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1025 states that dog owners are liable for their animals’ actions if it bites anyone in a public place or when you’re legally on private property. That’s an important distinction, because the bite is what triggers liability, not the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s temperament.

This legal framework defines how insurers evaluate these cases. Instead of going to court to argue if the owner should have done more to prevent the attack, the focus changes to what the legal damages are. 

The Meaning Behind the Term “Lawfully Present”

Insurers will often try to pull the card that the victim was trespassing on private property, and the animal was just doing what dogs do when protecting their home. They’ll attempt to frame the case this way to escape the strict liability statute. But being lawfully present means that guests, utility workers, postal carriers, and anyone in a similar capacity have a legal right to be on the property without a written invitation.

It becomes a factual issue when the defense argues that you were trespassing, and that’s when prior access, signage, witness testimony, and property boundaries come into play. It’s important to note that in serious cases these small disputes in the facts can affect your leverage in the case.

The Primary Defense Is Usually Provocation

The strict liability statute doesn’t eliminate a defense entirely, and attorneys in Arizona will often argue provoking the animal as the primary defense. If this is the case, and there is evidence to support the claim, then the owner has a chance of escaping liability. What’s important to be aware of is that provocation often isn’t limited towards a victims physical behavior toward the animal. 

Provocation can also include actions that people would normally take around a dog. Insurers and legal teams will do everything they can to stretch this concept of provocation beyond what would normally be supported by the law. That said, reaching to pet the dog, walking past the owners yard, or a child being in close proximity to the animal doesn’t account for provocation in the eyes of the law. 

If the issue of provocation comes up in proceedings the question moves to whether the victims behavior and conduct would be enough to cause the dog to bite them. This analysis isn’t cut-and-dry, and involves evidence and facts, such as eyewitness accounts and expert testimony. 

Strict Liability or Negligence?

Alongside the strict liability statute, Arizona state law also accounts for claims resulting from owner negligence. These types of claims can come about when the attack doesn’t fit properly within the legal statutory framework or if there is third-party involvement in responsibility. 

So, if a landlord knew that their tenant kept a dangerous dog and didn’t take the necessary actions to avoid being bitten, a negligence claim may also be filed against them, circumstances permitting.

Or if a business keeps an aggressive dog on their property to safeguard the premises at night, the liability for an attack might also extend beyond the owner. The issue of strict liability can simplify certain aspects of the case, but the proper evaluation of broader legal theories can increase recovery options when explored properly.

Comparative Fault Is Still a Valid Argument

Arizona law adheres to what’s known as the “pure comparative negligence system,” meaning that the defense can argue that the victim has a partial responsibility to the way the situation plays out, even in strict liability cases. So, in these cases the victim will see their compensation awarded being reduced by the percentage of responsibility they bring to the situation.

The reality is that insurers look to reduce the compensation they pay and they’ll examine every angle to make that happen. These arguments are common, but they don’t often bear fruit. So, preparing your case with a view to comparative fault principles will protect your compensation.

Understanding the Two-Year Statutory Deadline

The statute of limitations leaves the victim with two years to file their claim and the law is strict with this timeframe. Waiting to file your claim increases the risk of diminished compensation because footage gets deleted and witnesses can’t clearly recall the event. 

If there’s a government entity involved, like a bite happening in public housing complexes there could be a shorter notice requirement. If you miss the deadline then you might not receive any compensation. The insurers know all about these deadlines and they won’t remind you.

Homeowners Insurance Can Get Involved in The Claim

Homeowners or renters’ insurance policies are mostly responsible for paying out dog bite claims in Arizona. Victims aren’t seeking claims directly from the owner, but rather the insurer, and these companies have the sole objective of containing financial liability and the amount they pay out.

The homeowner’s policy limitations come into play and the amount you receive depends on the amount of coverage they have. If the case involves grievous harm like severed nerves or scarring, these limits become central to claims discussions and understanding this coverage determines the posture your legal team takes in their planning.

Get Early Legal Guidance from Stonerose Law

Even with strict liability giving you a good chance of receiving the best compensation possible, mistakes reduce the leverage when filing claims. Call Stonerose Law and we’ll sink our teeth into your claim to ensure you get the compensation you deserve.