Domestic Animal Injuries in Maryland: Liability for Dog Bites, Attacks, Knockdowns, Escapes, Livestock, and Other Animal-Caused Injuries
Published .
Animal-injury cases are often described too simply as “dog-bite cases.” Maryland law is more complicated. An injury may result from a bite, a dog knocking someone down, an animal chasing a pedestrian or bicyclist, a horse reacting to another animal, livestock escaping onto a roadway, or an owner’s failure to restrain an animal. The legal theory depends on the animal, the defendant’s relationship to it, what was known about its behavior, whether a statute or ordinance applies, and how the injury occurred.
Maryland does not have one universal rule of “strict liability” for every animal injury
For dogs, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901 creates important statutory rules. In an action against a dog’s owner for personal injury or death caused by the dog, proof that the dog caused the injury creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities. In a jury trial, the judge may not rule before the verdict that the presumption has been rebutted as a matter of law.
That is not the same as saying that every injury caused by every dog automatically produces liability under every circumstance. The statute contains separate rules for dogs running at large, preserves other common-law and statutory causes of action and defenses, and treats claims against nonowners differently.
The old “one free bite” shorthand is misleading
Maryland common law historically focused on whether an owner or keeper knew or reasonably should have known of the animal’s propensity to cause the particular kind of harm. A prior bite can be powerful evidence, but it is not the only possible evidence. Growling, lunging, chasing, repeated escapes, prior attacks on animals, restraint practices, warnings, complaints, animal-control records, and other behavior may bear on notice depending on the circumstances.
In Herbert v. Ziegler, the Court addressed an injury caused when a dog frightened a horse. The principle was not limited to a previous human bite: the question was knowledge of the animal’s inclination or propensity to do the particular mischief that caused the harm.
Dogs “running at large”
Section 3-1901(c) separately provides that a dog owner is liable for injury, death, or property loss caused by the dog while it is running at large, subject to statutory exceptions involving specified criminal conduct, trespass on the owner’s property, or teasing, tormenting, abusing, or provoking the dog.
In Blitzer v. Breski, 259 Md. App. 257, 303 A.3d 88 (2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland explained that “running at large” under § 3-1901 means that the dog is free, unrestrained, or not under control. The concept is not necessarily limited to a dog that has crossed the owner’s property line.
Local leash and animal-control ordinances can also matter. Their language and territorial application must be examined rather than assumed. A violation may provide evidence supporting negligence when the rule was intended to protect the relevant class of persons from the type of harm that occurred and the violation caused the injury.
Claims against landlords and other nonowners
A landlord is not automatically liable merely because a tenant owns a dog. A claim against a landlord or other nonowner requires analysis of the common law preserved by § 3-1901(b), including knowledge and control. Evidence may include whether the landlord knew the dog was present, knew of dangerous behavior, retained control over the relevant premises, had authority concerning the animal, received prior complaints, or undertook measures relating to the dog.
Maryland’s 2014 legislation was enacted in response to Tracey v. Solesky. The statute expressly displaced the breed-specific rule announced there and preserved the pre-April 1, 2012 common law for claims against persons other than owners without regard to breed or heritage. Breed alone should therefore not be substituted for proof required by current Maryland law.
Negligence remains a separate theory
An animal owner may also be negligent in controlling or restraining an animal even when a strict-liability theory based on known dangerous propensity is unavailable. Depending on the facts, negligence may involve a broken fence, an unsecured gate, violation of a leash rule, allowing an animal to roam where people or vehicles are foreseeably endangered, entrusting control to someone unable to restrain the animal, or ignoring repeated escape behavior.
The plaintiff still must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. The mere fact that an animal escaped or an accident occurred does not answer every element.
Bites are not the only compensable animal injuries
A person may suffer serious injury without being bitten. A large dog can knock someone down. A charging or chasing dog can cause a bicyclist to crash. A horse can throw a rider when frightened by another animal. Escaped livestock can create a roadway hazard. The proper legal analysis focuses on how the animal caused the injury and what the responsible person knew or should have anticipated—not simply whether teeth made contact.
Horses, livestock, and other domestic animals
Section 3-1901 is a dog statute. Claims involving horses, cattle, and other domestic animals generally require application of common-law negligence and animal-liability principles, together with any statutes, fencing rules, agricultural provisions, contracts, or local ordinances that apply. Evidence of prior escapes, defective fencing, known temperament, customary handling, warnings, and the circumstances in which the animal was kept may be important.
Provocation, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk
The conduct of the injured person may matter. Section 3-1901(c) contains express exceptions to its running-at-large rule, including teasing, tormenting, abusing, or provoking the dog. Separate common-law defenses may also be available because subsection (d) preserves other defenses and immunities.
Maryland remains a contributory-negligence jurisdiction. But a defendant cannot simply label ordinary interaction with an animal “provocation” or “assumption of risk.” The facts must satisfy the elements of the particular defense.
Evidence to preserve
Animal cases can turn on evidence that disappears quickly. Useful material can include photographs of injuries and the scene, surveillance or doorbell video, veterinary records, licensing information, animal-control records, prior complaints, neighborhood witnesses, texts or social-media statements concerning the animal, training records, photographs of fencing and gates, leases, insurance policies, medical records, and evidence of prior incidents. Prompt preservation can be especially important when video is routinely overwritten.
Injury to pets and other property
When an animal injures or kills a pet, Maryland law treats the claim differently from a human personal-injury claim. Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 11-110 provides a statutory framework for compensatory damages involving injury to or death of a pet. Because the statutory amount and wording are subject to legislative amendment, the current version should be checked when the claim is evaluated.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
- Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901 — dog-owner presumption, claims against nonowners, running-at-large liability, statutory exceptions, and preservation of other claims and defenses.
- Blitzer v. Breski, 259 Md. App. 257, 303 A.3d 88 (2023) — interprets “running at large” under § 3-1901 as free, unrestrained, or not under control.
- Latz v. Parr, 251 Md. App. 442, 254 A.3d 1200 (2021) — discusses § 3-1901, common-law animal liability, and the treatment of owners, keepers, and harborers.
- Herbert v. Ziegler, 216 Md. 212, 139 A.2d 699 (1958) — knowledge may concern an animal’s propensity to do the particular kind of mischief that caused the injury; the case involved a dog frightening a horse.
- Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc., 351 Md. 544, 719 A.2d 119 (1998) — addresses potential landlord liability involving knowledge of a dangerous dog and control over premises.
- Shields v. Wagman, 350 Md. 666, 714 A.2d 881 (1998) — discusses landlord/nonowner responsibility and control in a dog-attack setting.
- Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (2012) — historical breed-specific decision subsequently displaced by the General Assembly’s enactment of § 3-1901.
- Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 11-110 — damages involving injury to or death of a pet; current statutory amount should be verified at the time of use.