Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary Committee reviews H183 to create statutory dog-owner liability
Loading...
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee on May 20 received a staff walkthrough of H183, a reintroduced bill that would create a statutory liability standard for injuries caused by domestic dogs and address interplay with municipal leash laws, dog parks and exceptions for government working dogs.
On May 20, the House Judiciary Committee heard a staff walkthrough of H183, a bill that would create a statutory liability standard for damages caused by domestic dogs, Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee.
The proposed language would "establish a strict liability standard," Fitzpatrick said, shifting some proof burdens in civil lawsuits by creating a statutory duty for owners ‘‘to keep the dog under reasonable control at all times’’ and ‘‘to keep the dog from running at large.’’ If an owner breaches those duties, the bill would make the owner civilly liable for resulting damages, according to Fitzpatrick's presentation.
Committee members and staff discussed why the change matters: under current state provisions cited in the walkthrough, municipalities can adopt their own ordinances that operate instead of the fallback state procedure. Fitzpatrick said the draft removes the existing municipal-process language and instead focuses on the private civil-liability standard, noting the two approaches could coexist but the current draft takes the latter path.
The bill includes listed exceptions in which the proposed liability standard would not apply, as explained by Fitzpatrick: injuries occurring while a government agency dog is used in military or police work and the injury occurred during the dog's official duties; injuries where the injured person was trespassing on the dog's owner's property; injuries that occur while a dog is confined in a kennel, crate or other enclosure; injuries that occur while a dog is protecting the owner or another innocent person from attack; and injuries that occur after the injured person enticed, alarmed, harassed or otherwise provoked the dog.
Fitzpatrick said the draft contains definitions for terms important to liability, including "running at large," which the bill defines as a dog being uncontrolled on another person's premises without consent or uncontrolled on a highway, public road, street or any other place open to the public. He told the committee the draft distinguishes the duty to keep a dog under reasonable control from the separate duty to keep the dog from running at large.
Members raised several implementation questions during the discussion. Representative Kirk asked whether the bill's references to "damage" apply only to people; Fitzpatrick said the draft's language referring to damages suffered "by a person who was injured" could be read to include property damage but recommended explicitly defining "injury" if the committee wanted greater clarity. Committee members suggested the draft should clarify whether injuries to other animals or property are covered.
Several members pressed the committee to consider how the bill would interact with existing municipal leash laws and designated off-leash areas. Fitzpatrick said that if a municipality has a leash law or has designated dog-park areas where running off leash is permitted, the committee could draft exceptions or clarifying language to reflect those municipal choices. He also noted a related option: the draft could make breach of a municipal ordinance relevant to civil liability by explicitly tying an ordinance violation to the civil-liability standard.
Committee members discussed police and working dogs. Fitzpatrick pointed to the draft exception for government use in military or police work and said the language could be adjusted if the committee wanted to cover additional fact patterns, such as bites that occur outside the immediate scope of a dog's duty but while the dog is owned or handled by an officer.
The walkthrough noted the bill is a reintroduction of an earlier measure (H250 in 2021) and that it originally was drafted by Brynn, who now serves as director and chief counsel. The committee did not take a formal vote on H183 during the session; members indicated questions remain about definitions for injury, treatment of property damage and the interplay with municipal ordinances and dog-park policy.
The committee planned to hold straw polls on separate measures (H44 and H222) later in the meeting schedule, but no formal action was taken on H183 at this hearing.
