Dog Bite Liability in Georgia: Understanding the Modified One Bite Rule

Published Read 8 min read

On this page

A dog bite claim in Georgia turns on what the owner knew before the bite, not on whether the dog had bitten before. The Code makes an owner or keeper answerable only for a vicious or dangerous animal, and the decisions require proof that the owner knew of the animal’s propensity to do the kind of harm it did.

The Statute

OCGA 51-2-7 provides that “[a] person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured.” A second sentence adds: “In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash.”

Georgia does not make the owner liable without fault. In Cornejo v. Allen, No. A23A0052 (Ga. Ct. App. May 5, 2023), the Court of Appeals wrote that “Georgia does not impose strict liability upon dog owners for injuries caused by their dogs.”

Knowledge, Not a First Bite

The claim turns on what the owner knew about the dog. In Steagald v. Eason, 300 Ga. 717 (2017), the Supreme Court of Georgia wrote: “Even when it is shown that a dog is, in fact, vicious or dangerous, proof that its owner or keeper knows of the peculiar propensities that render the dog in question vicious or dangerous is an essential element of a lawsuit under OCGA § 51-2-7.” The Court of Appeals has described “the true test of liability” as “the owner’s superior knowledge of his dog’s temperament” (Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga. App. 467 (2002), quoting Wade v. American National Insurance Co., 246 Ga. App. 458 (2000)), and it has said that Georgia’s “first bite” rule does not “literally require a first bite” (Kringle v. Elliott, 301 Ga. App. 1 (2009), quoting Phiel v. Boston, 262 Ga. App. 814 (2003)).

Torrance v. Brennan, 209 Ga. App. 65 (1993), shows what a jury can consider. A neighbor asked to feed a chained dog was bitten on the arm and breast. Before the attack, the neighbor had seen the dog jump on a ten-year-old and put its mouth around the child’s arm and jump on a bicyclist and rip the rider’s pants with its teeth, and the owner had said the dog had “nipped” another neighbor. The jury awarded $30,000, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, writing that “this does not mean an incident involving the exact same conduct and the exact same injury must actually occur before the owner’s knowledge may be inferred.” Three prior incidents in which the dog jumped on people and attacked them with its mouth were “more than sufficient” to allow a jury to find notice.

In Raith v. Blanchard, 271 Ga. App. 723 (2005), a guest was bitten on the lip while kneeling to pet a Lhasa Apso at a party. A neighbor testified that the dog had earlier gone after the neighbor’s face and “nicked” the neighbor’s hand with its teeth, and that the owner had said the dogs were kept out of the house when company was there because the dog “could bite somebody.” The court held that this raised a jury question on the owner’s knowledge. It also held that the guest had not assumed the risk as a matter of law by approaching a dog that growled. Quoting Durham v. Mooney, 234 Ga. App. 772 (1998), the court wrote that “barking and growling amount, at most, to what has been characterized as menacing behavior,” and that such behavior, standing alone, does not demonstrate a vicious propensity or put an owner on notice that the dog will bite.

The injury need not be a bite. In Cornejo v. Allen, a dog bit a neighbor in its owner’s presence one evening and, the next afternoon, ran barking toward the neighbor, who fell and injured a shoulder while running away. The Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment for the owner on the negligence claim, reasoning that the earlier attack “may be sufficient to put Allen on notice that the dog might again try to attack Cornejo” and that “[t]he fact that the dog did not succeed in the attempt does not matter where, as here, there is evidence that Cornejo was injured while trying to escape the attack.”

When the Proof of Knowledge Falls Short

Speculative evidence that a dog may once have been aggressive does not prove that the owner knew of a propensity to bite. In Kringle, a seven-year-old was bitten by a golden retriever chained in a fenced backyard. The plaintiff offered evidence that the dog might have harmed a kitten and a puppy, but no one had seen the dog attack either animal and neither had bite marks. The Court of Appeals affirmed a directed verdict for the owner, writing that “the only evidence that may have indicated the dog’s propensity to bite was speculative at best.”

In Harris v. Martin, No. A24A0758 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2024), a jury awarded $66,000 to a pedestrian attacked by a pit bull while walking past a house, and the Court of Appeals reversed as to two of the defendants. A neighbor had called the police about the dog’s aggression and its earlier escapes, but testified to not having spoken to the owners or keepers about the dog’s behavior. The court found that “no evidence was presented that James and Dontavious knew of prior incidents where Nino had attacked, knocked down, or bitten anyone,” although it noted that it was clear the jury had not believed their testimony. It reversed the attorney’s fee award as well, because the judgment no longer exceeded the statutory threshold.

The Leash Ordinance Path

In S&S Towing & Recovery, Ltd. v. Charnota, 309 Ga. 117 (2020), the Supreme Court held that the second sentence of OCGA 51-2-7 does not violate procedural due process, and it explained that even where an ordinance required restraint and the animal was unrestrained, the plaintiff must still prove scienter in one of two ways: the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensity as defined by the common law, or the owner’s knowledge that the animal was unrestrained at the time of the injury.

Espinoza v. Morel, No. A22A1653 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2023), applied that rule. A person sent to check on a German Shepherd over a weekend was bitten on the head and foot after the dog lunged; the owners had left it tethered by a single point to a dog house in a partly fenced yard. The Gwinnett County ordinance made it unlawful to tether an animal outdoors except under conditions that included a trolley system, not a single-point tether. The trial court granted summary judgment because there was no evidence of a propensity to bite. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff “could prove scienter by showing that the owners were aware of the manner in which Teddy was restrained and by showing that such manner of restraint violated an applicable government leash ordinance,” which the owners’ own testimony supplied.

Provocation and Assumption of the Risk

The statute protects only a person who “does not provoke the injury by his own act.” Assumption of the risk is a separate defense. In Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga. App. 467 (2002), a 12-year-old petted a leashed Labrador mix inside a locked house and was bitten on the ear. The boy’s testimony was that the dog had growled at the boy before, that the growling “kind of scare[d him],” that the boy “wasn’t real sure about the dog[,] how he would act,” and that a friend had said the dog once bit another boy. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the owners on two grounds: the boy’s knowledge of the dog’s temperament was equal or superior to theirs, and the boy’s own testimony was “plain, palpable, and undisputed evidence that Michael assumed the risk of injury.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Can someone other than the owner be liable?
Yes. The statute reaches a person who “owns or keeps” the animal (OCGA 51-2-7), so someone caring for a dog can be sued, but knowledge has to be proved separately for each owner or keeper, as the reversal in Harris shows.

What makes a dog “dangerous” or “vicious” under Georgia’s dog classification law?
For that article, the definitions turn on conduct such as a substantial puncture of a person’s skin, an aggressive attack causing a reasonable belief of imminent serious injury, or serious injury to a person, and “serious injury” includes broken or dislocated bones, lacerations requiring multiple sutures, and disfiguring avulsions (OCGA 4-8-21(a)).

Does the leash-ordinance rule apply to roosters or farm animals?
No. The sentence allowing proof of vicious propensity through a leash ordinance “shall not apply to domesticated fowl including roosters with spurs” and “shall not apply to domesticated livestock” (OCGA 51-2-7).

Can a child be found to have assumed the risk of a bite?
In Durham v. Mason, the Court of Appeals said the doctrine “may apply to children between the ages of seven and fourteen if the evidence shows that the child appreciated the danger yet chose to confront it anyway.”

  • OCGA 51-2-7; OCGA 4-8-21(a)
  • Steagald v. Eason, 300 Ga. 717 (2017)
  • S&S Towing & Recovery, Ltd. v. Charnota, 309 Ga. 117 (2020)
  • Torrance v. Brennan, 209 Ga. App. 65 (1993)
  • Kringle v. Elliott, 301 Ga. App. 1 (2009); Phiel v. Boston, 262 Ga. App. 814 (2003) (as quoted in Kringle)
  • Raith v. Blanchard, 271 Ga. App. 723 (2005)
  • Durham v. Mason, 256 Ga. App. 467 (2002); Wade v. American National Insurance Co., 246 Ga. App. 458 (2000) (as quoted in Durham); Durham v. Mooney, 234 Ga. App. 772 (1998) (as quoted in Raith)
  • Espinoza v. Morel, No. A22A1653 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2023)
  • Cornejo v. Allen, No. A23A0052 (Ga. Ct. App. May 5, 2023)
  • Harris v. Martin, No. A24A0758 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2024)

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about dog bite liability under Georgia law. It is not legal advice, is not medical advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether an owner is liable depends on what the owner knew, whether an ordinance applied, and the specific facts. A person bitten by a dog should seek medical care and consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Related posts:

  1. Facial Fractures and Disfigurement in Georgia Injury Cases A face that strikes a steering column, an airbag, or a windshield can leave an injury that outlasts the fracture itself: an asymmetric cheek, a scar across the lip, a......
  2. Severe Burn Injury Claims in Georgia: Pursuing Compensation for Disfiguring Trauma For a person with a severe burn, a Georgia claim starts from how medicine measures the injury: how deep the burn goes and how much of the body it covers.......
  3. Birth Injury Malpractice in Georgia: Cerebral Palsy and Erb’s Palsy Claims A child who is born with an arm that will not move, or who is later diagnosed with cerebral palsy, leaves a family asking whether the delivery caused it and......
  4. Hand and Wrist Injuries: Impact on Work and Daily Life in Georgia A broken wrist or hand can keep a person away from work for weeks, and some injuries leave stiffness or a deformity that lasts. MedlinePlus, the health information service of......
  5. Construction Vehicle Accidents: Dump Trucks and Heavy Equipment A driver or passenger hurt in a collision with a dump truck or other construction vehicle meets questions an ordinary collision does not raise: what the truck was carrying and......
  6. Food Truck Accidents: Mobile Vendor Liability A person hurt by a food truck may have been struck on the road while the truck was moving or injured at the service window while it was parked and......
  7. Exercise Equipment Injuries in Georgia: Treadmill and Weight Machine Defects Exercise equipment raises questions that other products may not: the machine may not be in use when someone is hurt, its risks may be visible to anyone who looks, and......
  8. Airbnb and Vacation Rental Injury Claims in Georgia A guest hurt at a Georgia short-term rental can look to the host who owns or runs the property, to the platform that took the booking, and to the insurance......
  9. Highway Work Zone Accidents in Georgia A crash in a Georgia highway work zone can involve the driver who caused it, the contractor doing the work, and the government that owns the road, and each answers......
  10. Hospital Visitor Injury Claims in Georgia A visitor hurt in a hospital corridor, lobby, or parking area is not the patient, and Georgia law treats the visitor's claim as a premises claim rather than a claim......
  11. Emergency Room Negligence in Georgia: When Rushed Care Causes Harm A patient hurt by care in a Georgia hospital emergency department faces a heavier burden than the ordinary medical malpractice plaintiff. Under OCGA 51-1-29.5, a physician or health care provider......
  12. Airport Shuttle Accidents: Hotel and Transit Van Claims The claim of a passenger hurt in an airport shuttle or a hotel van depends on the duty Georgia law places on a carrier of passengers and on who operated......
  13. Bridge and Overpass Failure Claims in Georgia When a Georgia bridge or overpass fails, the injured person may have claims against the public body that owns it and against the firms that designed or built it, and......
  14. Economic vs. Non-Economic Damages in Georgia Personal Injury Cases Georgia sorts the money in an injury claim with two pairs of labels that come from different statutes. General and special damages are distinguished in OCGA 51-12-2; economic and noneconomic......
  15. Future Medical Expenses in Georgia: Proving Lifetime Care Costs After a serious injury, the damages claim can include care that has not been provided yet. Georgia law answers the proof questions for that care in several statutes. The future......
  16. Franchisor Liability for Franchisee Negligence in Georgia A franchised business carries a national name, but the company behind the counter can be a separate local operator that licenses the brand. Whether a person hurt there can reach......

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *