Maryland Dog Bite Law

How dog bite liability works in Maryland

Maryland's dog bite statute exists because of one pit bull case. In Tracey v. Solesky (2012) the Court of Appeals declared pit bulls inherently dangerous and made their owners, and landlords who knew a pit bull was on the property, strictly liable³. Before that ruling, a Maryland plaintiff had to prove the owner knew this particular dog had a propensity to do the harm it did³. The General Assembly answered in 2014 with Senate Bill 247 (chapter 48), an emergency act signed April 8, 2014, that abrogated Tracey and created Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901².

The 2014 law is breed-neutral and sits between the two older positions. Against an owner, proof that the dog caused the injury creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known of its dangerous propensities, and in a jury trial the judge may not take that question from the jury before the verdict¹. The owner can still try to rebut it. If the dog was running at large, the owner is liable for any injury, death or loss to person or property, subject to trespass, crime and provocation exceptions¹.

Against anyone other than the owner, such as a landlord, a dog sitter or a property manager, the statute freezes the common law as it stood on April 1, 2012, without regard to breed¹. That puts the burden back on you to prove that person knew of the dog's danger and had the power to act⁷⁸.

The rule that hurts most is old. Maryland is one of the few jurisdictions that still bars any recovery when the injured person was even slightly negligent; the Court of Appeals refused to change it in 2013 and left it to the legislature, which has not acted as of October 2026⁶²⁶. Virginia and the District of Columbia share that rule; Pennsylvania and Delaware do not.

The Maryland dog bite statute

Section 3-1901 does two things. In any suit against a dog's owner for personal injury or death the dog caused, evidence that the dog caused the injury creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities, and a judge may not rule the presumption rebutted before a jury returns its verdict¹. Separately, the owner is liable for any injury, death or loss to person or property caused by the dog while it is running at large, unless the injured person was trespassing or committing a crime on the owner's property, committing a crime against any person, or teasing, tormenting, abusing or provoking the dog¹. The presumption applies wherever the injury happened; the no-fault rule applies only to a dog at large. The section applies only to causes of action arising on or after April 8, 2014².

• Law: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 (Dog owner liability (Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Title 3, Subtitle 19)), enacted 2014; last changed Enacted by 2014 ch. 48 (SB 247), effective April 8, 2014 for causes of action arising on or after that date; unchanged through October 2026
• Injuries covered: Any injury the dog causes (bites, knock-downs, chases)
• Where: Limited situations
• Who is liable: The owner
• Damages: All damages, under the ordinary rules

Other ways to prove liability

Before 2014, Maryland ran a strict scienter rule: the plaintiff had to show the owner or keeper knew, or by ordinary care should have known, of the animal's propensity to do the particular mischief that caused the harm, and breed alone was not enough³. Section 3-1901(a) now presumes that knowledge against an owner, so a first bite can support a claim if the owner cannot rebut the presumption¹. For non-owners the April 1, 2012 common law still governs, without regard to breed¹. Section 3-1901(d) keeps every other cause of action, so an ordinary negligence claim (for example, an owner who let a dog out unrestrained near children) remains available alongside the statute¹.

Defenses owners raise

Provocation

The running-at-large rule does not apply if the injured person was teasing, tormenting, abusing or provoking the dog¹. In a presumption case, provocation is evidence the owner can use to show the bite was not the product of a known dangerous propensity, and it can also support contributory negligence¹⁶.

Trespassing

A person committing or attempting a trespass or other crime on the owner's property cannot use the running-at-large rule¹. Ordinary common-law limits on duties owed to trespassers are kept by § 3-1901(d)¹.

Committing a crime

The running-at-large rule also excludes a person who was committing or attempting a criminal offense against any person when the dog caused the injury, wherever it happened¹.

Other defense

Rebutting the presumption. The owner may offer evidence that they neither knew nor should have known the dog was dangerous, such as a long record without aggression. Whether that evidence is enough is for the jury, because the judge may not rule the presumption rebutted as a matter of law before the verdict¹.

Other defense

Contributory negligence. In a negligence claim, any negligence of yours that helped cause the injury is a complete bar⁶. Section 3-1901(d) keeps every other common-law defense, but no Maryland appellate decision we found has decided whether ordinary contributory negligence also defeats a running-at-large claim under subsection (c)¹.

Shared fault

Contributory negligence (any fault can bar recovery) (Common law; *Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia*, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013)).

Maryland has no comparative-fault statute. In Coleman (2013) the Court of Appeals kept contributory negligence and said any change belongs to the General Assembly⁶. A 2026 bill to allow comparative negligence for vulnerable road users in motor-vehicle cases was sent to interim study and did not pass²⁶. In a dog bite case, an owner can argue that you ignored a warning, reached into a car or over a fence, or handled the dog. If the jury finds you negligent and that your negligence contributed, a negligence claim fails entirely⁶. Whether the same bar applies to the statutory running-at-large rule has not been decided on appeal¹.

How the five fault systems compare: provocation, trespass and shared fault.

Maryland dog bite statute of limitations

3 years (Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101)

A civil action must be filed within three years from the date it accrues; for a bite that is normally the day of the attack⁴. If a county, city or other local government is responsible (a county animal shelter dog, for example), written notice stating the time, place and cause of the injury must reach the local government within one year of the injury, though a court may excuse late notice for good cause unless the government shows prejudice¹¹.

Children. When a child is bitten, § 5-201 lets the child file within three years after the disability of minority ends, so in most cases until the 21st birthday⁵.

Work out your own date with the dog bite claim checker, or compare deadlines in every state.

Damages

You can recover medical and hospital costs, future treatment such as scar revision, lost earnings, and noneconomic damages for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish⁹. Maryland caps noneconomic damages in every personal-injury case: the cap rises by $15,000 each October 1, so it is $965,000 for a bite between October 1, 2025 and September 30, 2026 and $980,000 for a bite between October 1, 2026 and September 30, 2027⁹. A parent who was in the zone of danger and watched the attack can recover for their own emotional distress⁷. Punitive damages need clear and convincing proof of actual malice, meaning evil motive, intent to injure, ill will or fraud; negligence, however gross, is not enough¹⁰. When a dog running at large injures your pet or property, § 3-1901(c) covers the loss without proof of knowledge (see dog attacked my dog)¹.

Landlords and property owners

A landlord is not an owner, so the presumption does not apply and the pre-2012 common law governs¹. Under Matthews v. Amberwood Associates (1998), a landlord owed a duty to a tenant's guest killed by the tenant's pit bull because the landlord's employees knew the dog was aggressive and the lease's no-pets clause gave the landlord power to have it removed⁷. Without knowledge and control there is no duty: in Ward v. Hartley (2006) a landlord who did not know about a tenant's pit bull and had no lease right over the premises was not liable, and had no duty to inspect for vicious animals⁸. See landlord liability for dog bites.

Insurance

No Maryland law bars homeowners or renters insurers from excluding dog breeds. Since October 1, 2013, an insurer that excludes losses caused by specific breeds or mixes must say so in writing and name the breeds at application or issuance and at every renewal¹². State law sets no insurance requirement for owners of dangerous dogs¹⁵.

More on coverage, breed exclusions and renters policies: dog bite insurance.

Tracey v. Solesky and the 2014 fix

A tenant's pit bull named Clifford jumped out of a small backyard pen twice in one day and attacked two boys; the second, ten-year-old Dominic Solesky, was mauled in an alley behind the house and spent seventeen days in hospital³. When the landlord's appeal reached the Court of Appeals, the court used it to change the law. On April 26, 2012, by four votes to three, it held pit bulls inherently dangerous, so an owner or landlord who knew or should have known a dog was a pit bull faced liability without proof that the dog itself had shown aggression³. On August 21, 2012 it granted reconsideration in part and deleted every reference to cross-bred pit bulls, limiting the rule to pit bulls that are not mixes³.

The General Assembly's answer, Senate Bill 247 of 2014 (chapter 48), took effect on April 8, 2014². It states the legislature's intent to abrogate Tracey, replaces breed-based liability with a breed-neutral presumption against all owners, and keeps the older knowledge-and-control rule for landlords and other non-owners¹². It applies only to causes of action arising after it took effect². Tracey is therefore no longer the rule for any bite since April 2014, though some secondary sources still describe it as if it were.

Bite reports and quarantine

Under COMAR 10.06.02.05, anyone who knows that a person was bitten by an animal must report it immediately, by phone or in person, to the local police or sheriff's department; in Frederick County the report goes to the county animal control center¹³. The police complete the Maryland Animal-Bite Report and Rabies Quarantine Agreement Form and must make it available to the local health officer within 24 hours¹³.

The owner of a dog, cat or ferret that bit a person must quarantine it for at least 10 days after the bite, in a place and manner approved by the local health officer or the state Public Health Veterinarian¹⁴. The health officer can order a veterinary examination during the quarantine, and the owner pays for the exam and other associated costs¹⁴. A dog alive and healthy at the end of the 10 days could not have transmitted rabies at the time of the bite²⁵. See dog bite quarantine.

Dangerous-dog hearings, euthanasia orders and criminal penalties are covered on Maryland dangerous dog law.

Questions about Maryland dog bite law

Is Maryland a one-bite state?

Not for claims against the owner. Since April 8, 2014, proof that the dog caused your injury creates a presumption that the owner knew the dog was dangerous, even if it had never bitten anyone, and the owner has to rebut it before a jury¹². Claims against landlords and other non-owners still follow the older knowledge-based rule¹. See the one-bite rule for how other states compare.

Does Maryland still treat pit bulls differently?

Not in civil cases. The 2014 law abrogated Tracey v. Solesky and applies the same presumption to every breed, and it tells courts to judge non-owners' liability without regard to breed or heritage¹². Local animal codes can still single out breeds, because no state law forbids it²⁴.

Can a dog owner in Maryland win by saying I was partly at fault?

In a negligence claim, yes: Maryland's contributory negligence rule bars recovery if your own negligence helped cause the injury, however small your share⁶. The owner has to prove it. Teasing or provoking the dog also takes you outside the running-at-large rule¹.

A loose dog attacked my dog in Maryland. Can I recover the vet bills?

Often, yes. Section 3-1901(c) makes the owner of a dog running at large liable for any injury or loss to property it causes, and pets are property in law, unless you were trespassing, committing a crime or provoking the dog¹. If the attacking dog was not at large, the claim needs ordinary proof of the owner's knowledge or negligence¹. See dog attacked my dog.

My dog bit someone in Maryland. Will it be put down?

Not automatically. State law requires a 10-day quarantine and, for dogs later found dangerous, confinement and muzzling, but it has no euthanasia procedure¹⁴¹⁵. Euthanasia orders come from local codes. In Baltimore City, for example, a dog found vicious after a severe bite must be euthanized, and the owner has 10 days to appeal in writing¹⁷¹⁸¹⁹.

How long does a bitten child have to sue in Maryland?

The child has three years after turning 18, so generally until the 21st birthday⁵. If a county or city is responsible, the one-year notice requirement still applies, though a court can excuse late notice for good cause¹¹. See child dog bites.

Official contacts

Sources

1. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
2. Senate Bill 247 (2014), chapter 48: Civil Actions – Liability for Injury or Death Caused by Dogs, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
3. Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627, 50 A.3d 1075 (2012), No. 53, Sept. Term 2011 (with opinion on reconsideration), Maryland Judiciary. Checked 17 October 2026.
4. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-101, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
5. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-201, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
6. Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013), Maryland Judiciary. Checked 17 October 2026.
7. Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, 351 Md. 544, 719 A.2d 119 (1998), CourtListener (Free Law Project). Checked 17 October 2026.
8. Ward v. Hartley, 168 Md. App. 209, 895 A.2d 1111 (2006), Maryland Judiciary. Checked 17 October 2026.
9. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 11-108 (noneconomic damages cap), Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
10. Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633 (1992), CourtListener (Free Law Project). Checked 17 October 2026.
11. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-304 (Local Government Tort Claims Act notice), Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
12. Md. Code, Insurance § 19-206.1 (notice of dog breed exclusions), Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
13. COMAR 10.06.02.05 (reporting animal bites), Maryland Division of State Documents. Checked 17 October 2026.
14. COMAR 10.06.02.07 (quarantine of dogs, cats and ferrets), Maryland Division of State Documents. Checked 17 October 2026.
15. Md. Code, Criminal Law § 10-619 (dangerous dogs), Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
16. Md. Code, Criminal Law § 3-204 (reckless endangerment), Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
17. Baltimore City Health Code § 10-703 (vicious animals – definition), City of Baltimore. Checked 17 October 2026.
18. Baltimore City Health Code § 10-1007 (corrective actions), City of Baltimore. Checked 17 October 2026.
19. Baltimore City Health Code § 10-1008 (appeal to Commissioner), City of Baltimore. Checked 17 October 2026.
20. Baltimore City Health Code § 10-1004 (opportunity for hearing), City of Baltimore. Checked 17 October 2026.
21. Baltimore City Health Code § 10-702 (dangerous animals), City of Baltimore. Checked 17 October 2026.
22. Baltimore City Health Code § 10-116 (finding animal to be dangerous or vicious), City of Baltimore. Checked 17 October 2026.
23. Pit Bull Fact Sheet (CB-097-2025), Prince George's County Government. Checked 17 October 2026.
24. Senate Bill 991 (2014): Dogs – Breed-Based Restrictions – Prohibition, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.
25. Rabies, Maryland Department of Health. Checked 17 October 2026.
26. House Bill 466 (2026): Motor Vehicle Accidents Involving Vulnerable Individuals – Comparative Negligence, Maryland General Assembly. Checked 17 October 2026.