It is not uncommon for dog owners to hire a dog walking service while they are busy with their lives or employment. When an individual is injured as a result of a dog bite that is being walked by an employee of a dog walking service it is important to know who is responsible and liable for damages resulting from the injury.

When an individual is bitten by a dog that is being walked by an employee who works for a dog walking service the situation may become complicated and difficult to understand with regards to state laws and local ordinances. It must be noted that many states hold the owner liable for damages even when someone else is caring for the animal. However, in other states there are laws that change the owner liability to ‘keeper and harborer liability’; which means that the individual caring for the dog at the time becomes liable if the dog bites a person. That being said many companies own insurance that may deflect liability away from their employees and agency together.

Many companies have insurance to provide for employees and the business or organization in cases of liability. Additionally, the dog owner may sign paperwork to take responsibility in cases of a dog attack. If the walker receives coverage through such legal paperwork they are not found liable. In the case the dog bites another because the dog walker antagonizes the dog into actually biting someone the company can only protect the person to some extent and they may be found liable for the injuries sustained.

It must be noted that the state of Alaska in itself does not have statutes in place that deal directly with dog bite liability. However, not having a specific dog bite strict liability statute does not mean that liability may not attach to the other theories of liability. The state provides for dog bites to fall under theories of liability such as negligence, nuisance or willful misconduct of various kinds. Therefore, if a dog walker antagonizes a dog to bite another individual it is likely that the dog walker faces liability. In addition, the state follows the ‘one bite rule’ which means that a person can be held liable for a dog attack if the dog had the ‘dangerous propensity to inflict such an injury and the defendant knew or should have known about that propensity’. In the case of Hale vs O’neal (1971), the Alaska Supreme Court referred to “the doctrine of strict liability for injuries caused by a domestic animal with known dangerous tendencies.” ‘The court noted that an owner becomes liable for injuries caused by the animal which stem from the fact that the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous tendency and the dangerous tendency resulted in an injury to the claimant.’

Further, third parties such as land owners and management companies can be held liable if they are aware of a dog’s vicious propensity to inflict injury and they do nothing to prevent it despite having the legal right to do so.

For help in a dog bite case contact a personal injury Anchorage attorney.