Skip to main content

In one of your recent answers (about a dog bite) you used the term 'strict liability.' What exactly does that mean? Are dog owners always liable for the dog bite?

 
Share this with your friends

Editor's Response

In Massachusetts and in other states, certain behavior can create liability for a person, even though she was not negligent.  So in the context of the dog bite question, a person can be liable for damages caused by their dog even though they were not negligent (letting a vicious dog with a history of biting wonder the streets, for example).  The injured party only needs to show that the other party owned or kept the dog and that he (injured party) was not trespassing or tormenting the animal. So, in answer to your seconds question, even with strict liability the onwer of the dog will not always be liable.
 
Another example of strict liability under Massachusetts law is lead paint.  If a landlord does not follow the requirement of the law and a child suffers injury as a result, the landlord is strictly liable, even though she was not negligent.  Please tell your friends about The Forum.

strict liability

Strict liability may seem harsh, but the answer is yes. Strict liability precludes having to prove that a party was negligent to another. The only issue in a "SL" case is damages. For example, if a party sues another for a dog bite--the issue would only be the amount of damages that the victim party suffered.  Good luck!

Talk to a Personal Injury Lawyer Today
Most offer FREE Consultations
Connect with The Forum
facebook google twitter linkedin