Colorado law provides three distinct pathways for dog bite victims to recover compensation: strict liability for serious injuries, standard negligence for other bodily harm, and negligence per se when an owner violates local animal control laws. Understanding which legal theory applies to your case depends on the severity of your injuries and the circumstances surrounding the attack.
Strict Liability for Serious Bodily Injury
Under Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-124, a dog owner is strictly liable when a dog bite causes serious bodily injury or death. Strict liability means the injured party does not need to prove the owner was negligent, knew the dog was dangerous, or violated any ordinance. The focus is solely on whether the injury meets the statutory definition of serious bodily injury.
The statute defines serious bodily injury as an injury that involves:
- A substantial risk of death;
- Serious permanent disfigurement;
- Protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body; or
- Breaks, fractures, or second- or third-degree burns.
Common examples include deep lacerations requiring extensive suturing, facial wounds causing permanent scarring, bone fractures, tendon or nerve damage, and injuries requiring reconstructive surgery. Death caused by a dog attack also falls under strict liability, allowing the decedent's family to pursue a wrongful death claim without proving the owner's negligence.
Because strict liability eliminates the need to establish fault, these claims can be more straightforward when the injury clearly meets the serious bodily injury standard. The injured party must still prove causation—that the dog bite directly caused the qualifying injury—but does not need evidence of the owner's carelessness or prior knowledge of the dog's dangerous tendencies.
Standard Negligence Claims for Other Bodily Injuries
When a dog bite causes bodily injury that does not rise to the level of serious bodily injury, the victim may still recover compensation through a standard negligence claim. This requires proving that the dog owner or keeper failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling or supervising the animal and that this failure directly caused the injury.
Bodily injuries under a negligence theory can include:
- Moderate lacerations requiring stitches but not causing permanent disfigurement;
- Muscle tears or soft tissue damage;
- Severe bruising or contusions;
- Injuries requiring medical treatment but without long-term impairment; or
- Psychological trauma resulting from the attack.
To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish four elements: the owner owed a duty of reasonable care, the owner breached that duty (such as by failing to restrain the dog or allowing it to roam off-leash in violation of reasonable expectations), the breach caused the injury, and the plaintiff suffered actual damages. Evidence may include witness testimony about the owner's control of the dog, prior complaints or incidents involving the animal, and circumstances showing the owner knew or should have known the dog posed a risk.
An important advantage of negligence claims is that they cover injuries beyond bites. If a dog knocks someone to the ground, causing a fracture or other harm, or if a person is injured while trying to escape an aggressive dog, a negligence claim may still be viable even though no bite occurred. The law does not limit recovery to bite injuries when negligence is the basis of the claim.
Negligence Per Se and Animal Control Violations
Negligence per se applies when a dog owner violates a statute or local ordinance designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred, and that violation directly causes the plaintiff's injury. In dog bite cases, this typically involves city or county animal control laws such as leash requirements, dangerous dog designations, or mandatory confinement rules.
When negligence per se is established, the violation itself constitutes a breach of duty. The plaintiff does not need to prove the owner acted unreasonably in the abstract; the violation of the protective law serves as evidence of negligence. The injured party must still prove causation—that the ordinance violation led to the attack—and demonstrate actual damages.
Examples of violations that may support negligence per se claims include:
- Allowing a dog to run at large in violation of a municipal leash law;
- Failing to confine a dog previously declared dangerous or vicious under local ordinance;
- Violating specific breed restrictions or requirements in certain jurisdictions; or
- Ignoring orders to muzzle a dog in public following prior incidents.
Because animal control laws vary widely across Colorado municipalities, it is important to identify the specific ordinances in effect where the attack occurred. In Colorado Springs, for example, the City Code includes leash requirements, dangerous dog procedures, and owner responsibilities that may form the basis of a negligence per se claim if violated.
Choosing the Right Legal Theory
The choice among strict liability, negligence, and negligence per se often depends on the injury's severity and the evidence available. Serious injuries meeting the statutory definition naturally fit strict liability claims, which eliminate the need to prove fault. Moderate injuries or non-bite injuries require a negligence approach, focusing on the owner's failure to exercise reasonable care. When a clear ordinance violation contributed to the attack, negligence per se may provide the most direct path to recovery.
In some cases, a plaintiff may plead multiple theories in the alternative, allowing a court or jury to determine which applies based on the evidence. An experienced personal injury attorney can assess the facts, identify applicable local ordinances, and structure the claim to maximize the likelihood of full compensation.
Defenses Dog Owners May Raise
Colorado law recognizes certain defenses that can reduce or eliminate a dog owner's liability. Even in strict liability cases, owners may argue that the injured party was trespassing on private property at the time of the attack or that the victim was engaged in unlawful conduct. Trespassing victims generally cannot recover under strict liability, though they may still have a negligence claim if the owner's conduct was reckless.
Provocation is another common defense. If the owner can show the victim teased, struck, or otherwise provoked the dog immediately before the attack, liability may be reduced or barred. Colorado courts apply a reasonableness standard: would the victim's conduct, under the circumstances, have caused a reasonable dog to react aggressively?
Comparative negligence may also apply. If the injured party's own carelessness contributed to the attack—such as ignoring warnings or approaching a clearly restrained dog—damages may be reduced in proportion to the victim's share of fault under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule.
Recoverable Damages in Dog Bite Claims
Successful dog bite claims can result in compensation for both economic and non-economic losses. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses (emergency treatment, surgery, reconstructive procedures, physical therapy, and counseling), lost wages during recovery, and diminished earning capacity if the injury causes long-term disability. Scarring and disfigurement may require ongoing cosmetic treatment, and those costs are compensable.
Non-economic damages compensate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent disfigurement or disability. Dog attacks often cause significant psychological trauma, particularly in children, and Colorado law allows recovery for these harms even when physical injuries are moderate.
In cases involving egregious misconduct—such as an owner's knowing failure to restrain a dog with a history of violence—punitive damages may be available, though they are relatively rare and require clear and convincing evidence of willful and wanton disregard for others' safety.
Time Limits for Filing Dog Bite Claims
Colorado's statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bites, is generally two years from the date of the injury. Failing to file within this period typically bars recovery. In cases involving minors, the statute may be tolled, extending the deadline until the child reaches the age of majority, but this does not apply in all circumstances.
Prompt action is important not only to meet filing deadlines but also to preserve evidence. Witness memories fade, medical records become harder to obtain, and physical evidence of the attack or the owner's negligence may be lost. Early consultation with an attorney allows for timely investigation and claim preparation.
Homeowner's Insurance and Dog Bite Claims
Most dog bite claims are ultimately paid by the owner's homeowner's or renter's insurance policy, which typically includes liability coverage for injuries caused by pets. Policy limits vary, and some insurers exclude certain breeds or impose restrictions after prior incidents. An experienced attorney can identify available insurance coverage, negotiate with adjusters, and pursue full compensation within policy limits.
In cases where the owner has no insurance or inadequate coverage, other sources of recovery may include the owner's personal assets, premises liability claims against landlords or property managers who knew of a dangerous dog, or umbrella policies that provide additional coverage.
Contact McCormick & Murphy for a Free Consultation
Dog bite injuries can have lasting physical, emotional, and financial consequences. Whether your case involves strict liability for serious harm, negligence for other injuries, or a violation of local animal control laws, McCormick & Murphy can help you understand your rights and pursue full compensation. We offer a free consultation to evaluate your claim, and we charge no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you. Contact our firm today to discuss your case.