Louisiana Dog-Bite Laws

Dog Owners' Civil Liability in Louisiana

Each state has its own rules for dog-bite liability. The three common approaches are:

• A negligence An owner is liable only if they've failed to take reasonable steps to protect people from their dog.
• A strict liability standard. Owners are automatically liable in most circumstances for injuries caused by their dogs.
• A "one-bite" rule. An owner is liable for injuries caused by their dog only if they knew—or should have known—that their dog might be dangerous.

Louisiana law uses aspects of all three of these approaches to decide dog owners' liability.

When Dog Owners Are Strictly Liable

Louisiana has a "limited strict liability" rule for injuries caused by dogs, which means that owners are automatically liable in most instances. But there are two very important exceptions:

• Strict liability doesn't apply if the injured person provoked the dog.
• Strict liability applies only if the owner could have prevented the injury.

(La. Civ. Code Art. 2321 (2023).)

To decide if an injury was preventable, courts have to determine if the animal presented an "unreasonable risk of harm." To make that determination, courts have to ask the kinds of questions that are usually used to decide if someone was negligent. These include whether:

• the owner knew the dog might be aggressive or dangerous
• the owner took reasonable precautions to protect people from the dog, and
• the victim shared any responsibility for the incident.

(Pepper v. Triplet Allstate Ins., 864 So. 2d 181 (La. 2004).)

As the following examples show, there's no one-size-fits-all answer to when a Louisiana owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog—it will depend on how a judge or jury views the facts of the case.

Strict Liability Examples: Dog Owner Is Liable

Louisiana courts have found that there was an unreasonable risk of harm, and that the owner was therefore strictly liable, in situations like these.

Failure to take proper precautions to protect people from an aggressive dog. An owner knew their dog was aggressive, and kept it tethered in the backyard to keep it away from passersby. But the tether was long enough, and the backyard fence was low enough, to allow the dog to bite someone walking past the property. The court found the owner strictly liable because he didn't do enough to protect people from his dog. (Becker v. Keasler, 950 So. 2d 92 (La. Ct. App. 2007.)

Failure to keep children away from a large dog with no history of aggression. The owner of a large Chow Chow dog kept it tethered in a fenced-in yard and posted some warning signs. The owner's adult daughter invited a family into the yard; one of the young children was bitten when she petted the dog. The court decided that, even though the dog had never been aggressive before, the owner created an unreasonable risk of harm because she didn't do enough to make sure children didn't approach her dog. (McBride v. XYZ Insurance, 935 So. 2d 326 (La. Ct. App. 2006).)

An aggressive dog escapes and commits an attack. An animal control officer came to the dog owner's home to investigate a reported dog bite. The owner walked outside to speak with the officer, closing the front door behind her. The dog escaped the home and mauled the officer. The court found that there was an unreasonable risk of harm because, despite knowing that the dog was aggressive and had escaped the house before, the owner didn't take the precaution of making sure the front door was securely locked. (Gonzales v. Kissner, 24 So. 3d 214 (La. Ct. App. 2009).)

Strict Liability Examples: Dog Owner Isn't Strictly Liable

On the other hand, Louisiana courts have found that there was no unreasonable risk of harm, and therefore decided not to impose strict liability, in cases like the ones below.

An aggressive dog bites a trespasser. The victim was bitten after entering the owner's yard to retrieve his child's ball. The dog was territorial, and had previously bitten a trespassing child. The owner had taken precautions that included not inviting people into the yard and double-checking the security of his fence and gate. The court found that the dog didn't present an unreasonable risk of harm and that the bite victim had put himself in harm's way. (Pepper v. Triplet, 864 So. 2d 181 (La. 2004).)

A playful dog trips someone working in the owners' home. A housekeeper was injured when the owners' puppy got underfoot and caused her to fall. The court reasoned that the housekeeper knew the puppy was playful but didn't take the precaution of closing the door to keep it away from her. The court also decided that any potential risk posed by a puppy's playful behavior was outweighed by the benefits the family got from owning the dog. (Williams v. Galofaro, 79 So. 3d 1068 (La. Ct. App. 2011).)

A dog with no history of aggression bites someone who tried to nuzzle it. The owner was working in his front yard when his neighbor walked over to speak with him. The neighbor stopped and pet the dog, and was bitten when he leaned down to nuzzle it. The court sympathized with the neighbor but didn't find the dog owner liable for the "unfortunate incident." It noted that the dog had never been aggressive, was securely tethered, and only bit after the neighbor held its head from behind. (Fournet v. Stoufflet, 352 So. 3d 996 (La. Ct. App. 2022).)

When Dog Owners Are Negligent

Even if a Louisiana court decides that an owner isn't strictly liable, it can still find that the owner is liable because they were negligent. To show negligence, a plaintiff (the person suing) has to prove that an owner failed in their duty to keep people safe from their dog.

In one case, an owner had her dog on a metal wire leash. When the dog bolted toward a pedestrian, the owner let go of the leash because it was hurting her hand; her dog then bit the pedestrian several times. A jury decided that the owner wasn't strictly liable but had been negligent. An appeals court agreed that the dog owner was negligent, saying that:

• she "had a duty to keep the animal under control to prevent him from harming others," and
• she breached that duty by dropping the leash and then not doing enough to get her dog away from the bite victim.

(Kshirsagar v. State Farm Ins. Co., 300 So. 3d 914 (La. Ct. App. 2020).)

Provoked Dog, But Owner Still Negligent

Louisiana's strict liability rule doesn't apply when a dog has been provoked, but the owner can still sometimes be found negligent for not controlling their pet. For example, in one case, two dog owners were participating in an obedience class when the defendant's dog bit the plaintiff. The bite happened after the plaintiff failed to follow instructions and let his dog get too close to the defendant's dog. The court said that strict liability didn't apply because the plaintiff's actions had provoked the defendant's dog. But it also said that the defendant was negligent for not being more careful about keeping his dog under control in a room full of other dogs and owners. (Nelson v. Lakey, 917 So. 2d 678 (La. Ct. App. 2005).)

When Owners Break Rules

Unlike some states, Louisiana's dog-bite law doesn't use the concept of negligence per se in dog-bite cases. Under negligence per se, defendants who fail to follow public safety laws are automatically negligent if someone is hurt as a result. For example, a court would assume a dog owner was negligent for ignoring a local leash ordinance and thereby allowing their dog to run over and bite someone.

In Louisiana, that sort of rule-breaking doesn't make an owner negligent per se. But it's something judges and juries will consider when deciding if an owner was being responsible. (Ducote v. Boleware, 216 So. 3d 934 (La. Ct. App. 2016).)