Marietta Injury Lawyer Blog
If you are approaching a dog bite lawsuit in Georgia, you might have heard something about the state’s “one-bite” rule. Not all US states have this rule, and it may prove problematic as you assess your legal options. That said, it’s important not to give up hope until you accurately determine which rules apply to your unique situation. It is all too easy to read unclear or nonfactual information online.
The One-Bite Rule Explained
In general terms, a one-bite rule states that a dog owner may only be liable for injuries if they knew or “should have known” that their dog was violent. In other words, the dog must exhibit past violent behavior before you can sue the owner for your own injuries. The “one-bite” rule gets its name from the basic requirement for a Georgia dog bite lawsuit. You must show that the dog bit someone else at least once before your incident.
However, past violent behavior does not necessarily need to involve a bite. It might also involve the dog jumping up at people and pushing them over. It might also involve the dog scratching someone.
How Do I Satisfy the Requirements of the One-Bite Rule?
If you want to bypass the one-bite rule and file a dog bite lawsuit in Georgia, you must prove that the dog involved in your attack exhibited dangerous behavior in the past. As a result, you may need to investigate the animal’s history and determine whether it was involved in any past dog attacks. If so, then you can show that the owner knew the dog was dangerous – and this may allow a lawsuit to move forward.
Note that barking or growling is not considered dangerous behavior under Georgia law. If a dog was never classified as potentially dangerous, they must inflict a severe injury to meet this requirement. If they were already classified as dangerous, virtually any type of dangerous attack can qualify.
Note that if the dog was provoked into becoming violent, these incidents are not considered dangerous behavior by Georgia courts. As a result, part of the investigation process should assess provocation.
With all that said, the one-bite rule might become irrelevant in certain situations. If the owner violated a leash ordinance prior to the attack, this violation alone can form the basis for legal action. For example, you may have been attacked by a free-roaming dog at a park where animals must remain leashed at all times. You may be able to sue in this situation even if the animal has never exhibited any dangerous behavior in the past.
Note that the owner may also count as a “victim” of their own animal for the purposes of the one-bite rule. For example, you might uncover medical records that show the owner sought treatment for a disfiguring bite from their own animal. Even if the owner neglected to inform the authorities about the dangerous nature of their dog and took no further action, this could satisfy the requirements of the one-bite rule.