One of the most famous Missouri trials is the case of Burden vs. Hornsby, a case which involved the death of a dog named Old Drum. George Vest’s closing argument, which came to be known as “Eulogy of the Dog”, is one of our favorite closing arguments to read from the old cases.

“Dog” cases still exist in Missouri law today, typically involving dog bites. These cases normally involve children. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 4.7 million people suffer dog bites each year. 800,000 seek medical attention and of those who do, roughly half are children, primarily between the ages of 5-9. Roughly one-third of dog bite injuries require emergency department care, because of the often serious nature of the injuries to younger children. Dog bite injuries include: cuts, scrapes, puncture wounds, nerve damage, scarring and other injuries. A dog bite can also lead to mental-health concerns like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and fear.

For many years, Missouri followed the “one bite” rule. This rule required the injured individual to establish that the owner of the dog had “actual knowledge of an abnormal dangerous propensity of a domestic animal.” Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Simmons, 103 S.W.3d 211, 217 (Mo. App. 2003) is one of the last reported cases following this rule. Unless the owner had some knowledge or notice that the dog had bitten someone before, the owner of the dog was not held liable.

In 2009, Section 273.036 RSMo., became law in Missouri. The statute eliminated the “one bite” rule and imposed a strict liability standard for dog owners. The statute provides:

The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner’s or possessor’s knowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors of the dogs shall also be strictly liable for any damage to property or livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that the party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by the owner or possessor of the biting dog shall be reduced by the same percentage that the damaged party’s fault contributed to the incident. The provisions of this section shall not apply to dogs killing or maiming sheep or other domestic animals under section 273.020.

Following this law, the fact that a dog owner may not have any knowledge or notice of a dog’s potentially dangerous propensities, or even, may in fact know that the dog has never bitten someone, is no longer a defense. If the statute is followed by the court, someone who has been bitten now needs to prove only that they were lawfully on the dog owners’ premises and that they did not provoke the dog before being bitten. If both of these facts are proven true, then the dog owner is strictly liable for any injuries suffered by the injured individual when bitten.

The statute does apparently leave provocation, trespass and comparative fault as defenses in a dog bite case. Despite being nearly five years old, there are no reported cases interpreting the statute yet. It remains unclear how these defenses may be used in dog bite cases. Under Missouri law, “strict liability,” generally means that there are either limited or no available defenses, if the elements of the statute are met. Further, the relationship between Sections 273.036 and 578.024 RSMo., is unknown. Section 578.024 RSMo., also passed in 2009, is part of the Missouri criminal code. This section provides that a dog owner who has knowledge of a prior bite, may be criminally liable on the second bite, with a range of punishment from a class B misdemeanor, all the way to a class C felony, depending upon the severity of the two dog bites. The possible confusion comes in Section 578.024.4 RSMo., which specifically states that:

if a dog attacks or bites a person who is engaged in or attempting to engage in a criminal activity at the time of the attack, the owner or possessor is not guilty of any crime specified under this section or section 273.036, and is not civilly liable under this section or section 273.036, nor shall such dog be destroyed as provided in subsection 2 of this section, nor shall such person engaged in or attempting to engage in a criminal activity at the time of the attack be entitled to the defenses set forth in section 273.033. For purposes of this section “criminal activity” shall not include the act of trespass upon private property under section 569.150 as long as the trespasser does not otherwise engage in, attempt to engage in, or have intent to engage in other criminal activity nor shall it include any trespass upon private property by a person under the age of twelve under section 569.140.

The two statutes, when read together, may cause some confusion as to whether or not trespass is a viable defense or when it arises to a level that precludes criminal liability for the dog owner.

If you or a loved one was injured in a dog attack, contact our experienced dog bite lawyers to discuss your legal options and the compensation that may be available to you.