New Mexico Dog Bite Law

How dog bite liability works in New Mexico

New Mexico's legislature has never passed a civil dog bite statute. The rule comes from the courts and is written into the state's model jury instruction, UJI 13-506: an owner is liable for harm the dog causes "if the owner knew, or should have known, that the dog was vicious or had a tendency or natural inclination to be vicious"¹. The Supreme Court re-approved that wording in October 2025, effective for cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2025¹.

Two things set New Mexico apart from other one-bite states. First, in Smith v. Village of Ruidoso (1999) the Court of Appeals held that UJI 13-506 is a strict-liability rule once knowledge is shown, not a negligence rule². Second, the same case opened a separate negligence route: an owner who had no reason to think the dog was dangerous can still be liable for failing to control it where injury could reasonably be expected². The case involved a village police dog that bit a girl, and it also held that the strict-liability instruction cannot be used against a government body².

What counts as notice of viciousness is not fully settled. The committee commentary to UJI 13-506 says the dog's vicious streak must have shown itself against a human being, and aggression toward other animals is not enough¹. Smith describes the 1953 Supreme Court case Perkins v. Drury as holding the opposite: an owner's knowledge of the dog's viciousness toward another dog was enough to make him liable for a bite to a child².

Neighbors differ sharply. Arizona and Oklahoma have bite statutes, and Colorado has one for serious injuries; Texas follows the one-bite rule like New Mexico. For the full table see dog bite laws by state.

No dog bite statute: the one-bite rule

New Mexico has no statute that makes a dog's owner automatically liable for a bite. Claims rest on the common law, described below. See the one-bite rule for how it compares with the states that have a statute.

Proving the owner knew or was careless

Two routes are open. Under UJI 13-506 you prove the owner knew or should have known the dog was vicious; then the owner is liable even if they used the utmost care, because Smith v. Village of Ruidoso treats the instruction as strict liability on the model of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 509^1,2. If there was no such knowledge, Smith adopted Restatement § 518 and overruled Aragon v. Brown (1979) to the extent it barred negligence claims: an owner who ineffectively controls a dog "in a situation where it would reasonably be expected that injury could occur" can be liable in negligence². NMSA § 77-1-10 also makes it unlawful to keep an animal known to be vicious unless it is securely kept, a rule the jury-instruction committee points courts to¹. Whether earlier aggression toward animals counts as notice is unsettled: the 2025 committee commentary says it does not, while Smith reads Perkins v. Drury (1953) as holding that it did^1,2.

Defenses owners raise

Provocation

The bracketed defense in UJI 13-506 bars recovery if the injured person knew the dog's propensities and "wantonly excited it"¹. It is a complete defense when the jury finds it, not a reduction.

Assumption of risk

The same instruction also bars recovery if a person who knew the dog's propensities "voluntarily and unnecessarily ... got in the way of the dog", wording the Supreme Court updated in 2025¹.

Police dogs

Strict liability under UJI 13-506 cannot be imposed on a government body, because the Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for strict liability; a negligence claim may still go forward, as it did in Smith v. Village of Ruidoso against a village police dog².

Other defense

Lack of notice is the main defense in practice: if the owner had no reason to know the dog was vicious, the scienter claim fails and you must prove negligence in controlling the dog^1,2.

Shared fault

Pure comparative fault (Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234).

In Scott v. Rizzo the Supreme Court replaced contributory negligence with pure comparative negligence: your own carelessness reduces your award by your share of fault but never bars it, even above 50%⁴. That applies directly to negligence claims against an owner. We found no New Mexico appellate decision on whether comparative fault also reduces a UJI 13-506 scienter claim; the instruction's own defense for a person who wantonly excited the dog or got in its way is a complete bar¹.

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

New Mexico dog bite statute of limitations

3 years (NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8)

An action "for an injury to the person" must be brought within three years, and the clock starts on the day of the bite³. A claim against the state, a city, a county or a school district under the Tort Claims Act also needs a written notice of the time, place and circumstances of the injury within 90 days unless the body had actual notice; without it the court cannot hear the claim⁵.

Children. Under § 37-1-10 a child has one year after turning 18 to sue. Gomez v. Chavarria (2009) held a minor's claim is not barred until one year after 18 or three years after the injury, whichever is later³.

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

Damages

No statute caps damages in a claim against a private dog owner. The jury fixes the money that "will reasonably and fairly compensate" you for each element of harm you prove, under UJI 13-1802, and a child can recover lost earning capacity under its own instruction¹¹. Punitive damages need conduct that was malicious, willful, reckless, wanton, fraudulent or in bad faith¹⁰. No New Mexico statute doubles or trebles dog bite damages.

Landlords and property owners

No published New Mexico decision holds a landlord liable for a tenant's dog. In Ortiz v. Johnson (2013), an unpublished Court of Appeals memorandum opinion, a landlord who did not live on the property was not liable when a tenant's dog bit a passerby on the sidewalk: a lease clause requiring pet approval did not give the landlord control of the dog, and there was no evidence the landlord knew it was dangerous⁶. The court said "the standard for liability to attach is not lower for landlords than it is for the actual owner of a dog"⁶. A landlord who keeps control of common areas may face a premises claim; see landlord liability.

Insurance

No New Mexico statute found for this page limits homeowners or renters insurers' use of dog breed. The Dangerous Dog Act does not require liability insurance or a bond for a declared dangerous dog; its registration conditions are about confinement, handling and identification⁷.

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

A police dog case that reshaped New Mexico bite law

Smith v. Village of Ruidoso began when a Ruidoso police dog bit a girl². The trial court gave the jury the dog-owner instruction, UJI 13-506, together with an ordinary-care instruction. On appeal the Court of Appeals held in 1999 that UJI 13-506 is a strict-liability instruction: once the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious nature, care does not matter². That had a consequence for the village, because the Tort Claims Act does not waive government immunity for strict liability². But the court also held that dog bites are not excluded from ordinary negligence, overruled Aragon v. Brown (1979) to the extent it said otherwise, and adopted Restatement § 518². The negligence claim went back for trial. The result is the two-track rule every New Mexico dog bite claim uses today: scienter against any private owner, and negligence when there is no prior warning sign or when the owner is a public body^1,2.

Bite reports and quarantine

Under 7.4.2.9 NMAC, when a person is bitten by an animal, the bitten person, a parent or guardian, or anyone who knows where the animal is must immediately notify the local animal control officer or the Department of Health's public health field office⁸. The owner of a declared dangerous or potentially dangerous dog must also notify animal control immediately of any attack on a person or domestic animal⁷. The Department of Health's epidemiologist line answers rabies questions around the clock¹².

A dog, cat or ferret that bites a person must either be destroyed and its head sent for rabies testing, or confined immediately at the owner's expense for a 10-day observation, at a place and in a manner the animal control officer designates and the health office approves⁸. The rule does not itself say whether home confinement is allowed; that is the officer's call. A dog that shows signs of rabies during the 10 days is destroyed and tested⁸.

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

Questions about New Mexico dog bite law

Is New Mexico a one-bite state?

Yes. No statute makes owners liable without fault. You must show the owner knew or should have known the dog was vicious, or that the owner was negligent in controlling it^1,2. A first bite can still lead to liability through the negligence route, for example when an owner lets a large dog loose near children².

How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in New Mexico?

Three years from the bite under NMSA § 37-1-8³. If the dog belonged to a city, county or state agency, you must also give written notice within 90 days of the bite unless the body had actual notice⁵. For a child, the deadline is three years from the bite or one year after the 18th birthday, whichever is later³.

Can I sue the city if a police dog bit me?

Only in negligence. Smith v. Village of Ruidoso held that the strict-liability dog owner instruction cannot be used against a government body, but allowed a negligence claim over a police dog bite². The Tort Claims Act's 90-day written notice rule applies⁵. See police dog bites.

Will my dog be put down after biting someone in New Mexico?

Not automatically. A biting dog must be either destroyed for rabies testing or confined for 10 days at the owner's expense⁸. Destruction under the Dangerous Dog Act happens only after a court finding, if the owner fails to register the dog within 30 days, or if the owner breaks the conditions later⁷.

Does it matter if the dog had attacked other dogs before?

It may. The 2025 committee commentary to UJI 13-506 says aggression toward other animals is not enough notice; the dog's viciousness must have been shown against a person¹. Smith v. Village of Ruidoso reads the 1953 case Perkins v. Drury the other way². You can also rely on negligence if earlier fights made a bite foreseeable².

Official contacts

Sources

1. UJI 13-506 NMRA, Liability of a dog owner (as amended Oct. 31, 2025), New Mexico Supreme Court. Checked 17 October 2026.
2. Smith v. Village of Ruidoso, 1999-NMCA-151, 128 N.M. 470, 994 P.2d 50, New Mexico Court of Appeals (NMOneSource). Checked 17 October 2026.
3. Gomez v. Chavarria, 2009-NMCA-035, 146 N.M. 46, 206 P.3d 157 (NMSA §§ 37-1-8, 37-1-10), New Mexico Court of Appeals (NMOneSource). Checked 17 October 2026.
4. Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234, New Mexico Supreme Court (NMOneSource). Checked 17 October 2026.
5. Martens v. City of Albuquerque, 2023-NMCA-037 (NMSA § 41-4-16), New Mexico Court of Appeals (NMOneSource). Checked 17 October 2026.
6. Ortiz v. Johnson, No. 31,645 (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2013) (unpublished memorandum opinion), New Mexico Court of Appeals (NMOneSource). Checked 17 October 2026.
7. Dangerous Dog Act, Laws 2005, ch. 61 (SB 432), NMSA 1978, §§ 77-1A-1 to -6, New Mexico Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
8. 7.4.2 NMAC, Animal Control Requirements (§§ 7.4.2.9, 7.4.2.13), New Mexico Department of Health. Checked 17 October 2026.
9. Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 108 N.M. 116, 767 P.2d 355 (Ct. App. 1988), Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School. Checked 17 October 2026.
10. UJI 13-1827 NMRA, Punitive damages (as amended Oct. 31, 2025), New Mexico Supreme Court. Checked 17 October 2026.
11. UJI 13-1802 NMRA, Measure of damages; general (as amended Oct. 31, 2025), New Mexico Supreme Court. Checked 17 October 2026.
12. Rabies, New Mexico Department of Health. Checked 17 October 2026.