Dog Bite Laws Across State Lines: What Law Applies?

In fact, there are no federal laws governing dog bites.  Each state has its own rules for holding dog owners responsible. Some states make owners pay for injuries even when they did nothing wrong. Others require victims to prove that the owner acted carelessly or knew the dog was dangerous.

These differences matter most when an attack causes serious injuries. Medical bills may be only a small part of the harm. Victims may also face lost wages, permanent scars, emotional trauma, and years of pain.     

Yet the law does not always make it easy to recover compensation for those losses.   

 

First, Which State’s Law Applies?

Before comparing these laws, we must answer another question: Which state’s law governs the case?     

A separate area of law, known as “choice of law,” answers that question. The location of the attack matters, but it does not always control. Courts may also consider where the parties live, where the dog is kept, and which state has the strongest connection to the dispute.

Pennsylvania courts weigh several factors rather than automatically applying Pennsylvania law to every injury that occurs here. See Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964).        

As a result, another state’s law could govern a dog attack that occurs in Pennsylvania. Given the differences among these states, that decision can significantly affect the outcome of a case, as explained at greater length below.            

But first, let’s compare the different states’ law governing attacks.

 

Pennsylvania’s Dog Bite Law

Pennsylvania takes a middle-ground approach to dog bite liability.

Under Pennsylvania’s Dog Law, owners and keepers generally must pay medical treatment costs resulting from a dog bite or attack. This rule applies even if the dog has never acted aggressively.   

Lawyers call this strict liability because the victim does not need to prove that the owner acted negligently.

However, medical expenses tell only part of the story. To recover additional damages, such as pain and suffering, lost earnings, or permanent scarring, victims generally must prove negligence or establish another legal basis for liability. Recent amendments have changed parts of Pennsylvania’s Dog Law, making PA’s law something very close to “strict liability.” We discuss those changes in greater detail in this article about Pennsylvania dog bite liability.  But liability can exist based on:

• common law negligence: the owner fails to use due care for failing to look out for potential danger from dangerous dog or take steps to protect the public, or
• serious injury occurs, or
• for “any unprovoked attack” on a “human.”      

Click here for more.  

 

Ohio: Strong Protection for Dog Bite Victims

Ohio has one of the nation’s strongest dog bite laws for injured people.    

Under Ohio Revised Code § 955.28(B), a dog’s owner, keeper, or harborer generally must pay for injuries the animal causes. The victim does not have to prove that the owner acted carelessly or knew the dog was dangerous.

Unlike Pennsylvania, Ohio does not limit this protection to medical bills. Victims may also recover lost wages, pain and suffering, and damages for permanent disfigurement.

Consider a friendly family dog that suddenly attacks a visitor and causes severe facial injuries. Even if the dog never showed aggression before, Ohio law generally holds its owner responsible.

The law does recognize exceptions. For example, an owner may have a defense when someone trespasses or provokes the dog.

Still, Ohio places much of the financial risk on people who own or control dogs. Its approach follows a simple principle: Dog owners should generally bear the consequences when their animals injure innocent people.   

 

West Virginia: Was the Dog Running Loose?

West Virginia takes a narrower approach. Its law focuses heavily on whether the dog was running loose when the attack occurred.

Under West Virginia Code § 19-20-13, an owner or keeper who allows a dog to run at large must pay for damages the animal causes while roaming. The victim does not have to prove that the dog previously acted aggressively.

However, different rules apply when a dog attacks someone while confined on its owner’s property. In that situation, the victim generally needs another basis for holding the owner responsible. That might involve the owner’s knowledge of dangerous behavior or negligence.

Therefore, where the attack occurred and whether the owner allowed the dog to roam can make a major difference.

West Virginia’s approach may reflect its rural and agricultural history. Dogs have long helped people hunt, guard property, and protect livestock. The law draws a distinction between keeping dogs under control and allowing them to roam where they may injure others.   

 

Maryland’s Law

Maryland uses a different approach that can help victims prove their claims.

First, Maryland generally holds owners responsible when their dogs cause injuries while running at large. This protection extends beyond medical bills, although the law recognizes certain exceptions.

Maryland also gives victims an important advantage in other dog attack cases.

Under Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901, the law generally presumes that an owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous when it injured someone.

Lawyers call this a rebuttable presumption. In simpler terms, the law starts with the assumption that the owner knew of the danger. The owner can then present evidence to challenge that assumption.

Consider a dog that bites a visitor at a home. The visitor may not know whether the dog previously growled at neighbors or threatened delivery drivers. Maryland’s law helps address that problem.

The owner can still challenge the presumption, and the victim must satisfy other legal requirements. Nevertheless, this rule gives injured people an advantage that victims in many other states do not have.

Maryland’s approach strikes a balance. It does not automatically hold every owner responsible for every injury. Instead, it makes it easier for victims to establish that an owner knew about a dog’s dangerous tendencies.

 

New York: A Major Change in 2025

For many years, New York had one of the nation’s most restrictive dog bite laws.

Traditionally, victims generally had to prove that an owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. Courts often called this the “one-bite rule.”

Despite its name, the rule did not require a previous bite. Growling, snapping, or other threatening behavior could also show that an owner knew the dog posed a danger.

But New York went further. Its courts generally prevented victims from bringing ordinary negligence claims for injuries caused by domestic animals.

That meant a victim could lose a case even when an owner acted carelessly. Without evidence that the owner knew the dog was dangerous, the victim might have no claim.

New York’s highest court established that restrictive approach in Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006).

New York’s Highest Court Changes the Rules

In April 2025, New York’s highest court changed the law in Flanders v. Goodfellow, 44 N.Y.3d 57 (2025).

The case involved a postal worker who suffered a dog bite while delivering a package to a home. The worker argued that the owners failed to use reasonable care to control their dog.

The Court of Appeals agreed that victims should have the right to bring ordinary negligence claims.     

As a result, New York now gives dog bite victims two ways to establish liability.      

First, they can prove that the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. Alternatively, they can show that the owner acted negligently and caused the injury. This change matters. Victims no longer need evidence of previous aggression to pursue an ordinary negligence claim.     

For example, an owner who carelessly leaves a gate open may face liability if the dog escapes and injures someone. The victim can pursue a negligence claim even without proof that the dog previously acted aggressively.    

New York still does not offer the broad strict liability protection found in Ohio. However, its 2025 decision removed a major obstacle for injured people.  

 

Why Are These Laws So Different?     

Why should a dog owner in Ohio face broader liability than someone in Pennsylvania or West Virginia?       

History offers part of the explanation. 

For generations, people kept dogs for more than companionship. Dogs helped farmers protect livestock, guarded property, and assisted hunters.

In agricultural states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, dogs played an important role in everyday life, making those states reluctant to adopt “strict liability” as it exists in a majority of states.  In fact, 35 states, Washington, D.C., and four territories have strict liability.                 

Over time, states took different paths. For example, Ohio has farming and livestock, but Ohio adopted broad strict liability, simply because its legislature wanted it, enacting it by statute.  Thus, although agricultural history provides useful background, it does not explain every difference.  State legislatures and courts have also shaped these laws through decades of separate decisions.              

 

How the Five States Compare

The key question is whether a victim must prove negligence or knowledge of dangerous behavior to recover full compensation.

State	What the Victim Generally Must Prove
Pennsylvania	Medical treatment costs generally do not require proof of negligence. Other damages usually require negligence or another basis for liability, such as an unprovoked attack on a human, will be enough.
Ohio	Victims generally can recover full damages without proving negligence or previous aggression.
West Virginia	Strict liability applies when an owner or keeper allows a dog to run at large. Other attacks require a separate basis for liability.
Maryland	Strict liability applies to certain attacks by dogs running loose. In other cases, the law helps victims prove the owner’s knowledge of danger.
New York	Victims can recover full damages by proving either known dangerous tendencies or ordinary negligence.

Example: The Same Attack, Different Results By State

Imagine a dog that has never bitten anyone. One morning, its owner opens the front door. The dog runs outside and attacks a delivery driver.

The driver needs surgery, misses months of work, and suffers permanent scarring.   

Ohio: the owner would generally have to pay for the full extent of those injuries. The driver would not need to prove negligence or previous aggression.

West Virginia: the result could depend on whether the dog was running at large. Maryland might provide statutory protection or help the driver establish that the owner knew the dog was dangerous.

New York: the driver could now pursue a negligence claim without proving that the dog previously acted aggressively.

Pennsylvania:  PA would generally require the owner or keeper to cover medical treatment costs. However, the driver would need another basis for liability to recover additional damages, such as liability for an unprovoked attack on a human. 

These differences matter because medical bills often represent only a fraction of the harm from a serious dog attack. Victims may also suffer permanent scars, emotional trauma, lost income, and lifelong physical limitations.     

 

Added Complexities: Choice of Law

You might say:  the attack happened in PA, so PA law applies, right?      

Not necessarily.   

A PA court may sometimes apply another state’s law, even when the attack occurs in Pennsylvania.  This is called “choice of law.” For example, a judge in PA presiding over PA case involving an attack in PA, might look to PA’s “choice of law” rules to decide whether to apply another state’s law.  

Pennsylvania long ago abandoned the strict rule of lex loci delicti (which automatically applied the law of the place where the injury occurred). Instead, following the landmark case Griffith v. United Airlines (1964), Pennsylvania courts utilize a flexible, hybrid framework combining “governmental interest analysis” and the “significant relationship” test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws.

So the court is free to ask questions:

• Do one or both of the parties live in another state? 
• Did the negligent events leading up to the PA attack occur in another state?     
• Is the medical treatment occurring in another state, as paid for by that state’s government insurance program, giving that state an interest in the outcome?

Though rare, a PA judge could apply Ohio law to an attack in Pennsylvania if:  both the plaintiff (the victim) and the defendant (the dog owner) are lifelong residents of Ohio. The dog is registered, vaccinated, and normally kept in Ohio, and the medical treatment occurred in Ohio.

For that reason, both the facts of the attack and the law governing the claim can make a substantial difference in the outcome.