Washington Dog Bite Law

How dog bite liability works in Washington

Washington has had a dog bite statute since 1941. RCW 16.08.040 holds the owner liable for the damages a bitten person suffers "regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness"¹. Until 1979, a bite on the owner's own property counted only if the victim was there to perform a duty imposed by law, so social guests were left out. The legislature then rewrote RCW 16.08.050 to cover anyone on the property with the owner's express or implied consent^2,8.

Courts read the statute narrowly because it departs from the common law. It reaches only the "owner", although someone who has lived with and cared for a dog for years can be found to own it⁸. It applies only to bites, and only to people lawfully on the property. Consent is not presumed when the property is fenced or posted. That is why a neighbor whose finger went through a chain-link fence could not use the statute¹⁰.

Cases outside the statute fall back on common law. A keeper or owner who knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities is liable without proof of carelessness. So is anyone who fails to control an animal where injury could reasonably be expected⁹. Washington also uses the most lenient form of comparative fault. Under its pure system, a bitten person who was partly careless still recovers, minus their share⁶.

For the rules across the border, see the Idaho and Oregon pages or the national table. For the steps to take after a bite, see what to do after a dog bite.

The Washington dog bite statute

The owner of a dog that bites a person in or on a public place, or lawfully in or on a private place including the owner's own property, is liable for the damages the bitten person suffers, whether or not the dog was vicious before and whether or not the owner knew it¹. A person is lawfully on the owner's property with the owner's express or implied consent, but consent is not presumed if the property is fenced or reasonably posted². Since 2012 the statute does not apply to the lawful use of a police dog^1,17.

• Law: RCW 16.08.040 (Dog bites — Liability), enacted 1941; last changed 2012: added subsection (2), excluding the lawful application of a police dog
• Injuries covered: Bites only
• Where: Public places, or lawfully on private property
• Who is liable: The owner
• Damages: All damages, under the ordinary rules

Other ways to prove liability

Washington recognizes two common-law claims alongside the statute. An owner, keeper or harborer who knows or should know of a dog's dangerous propensities is liable for the harm regardless of care. An owner of a dog with no known dangerous traits is liable only for negligence: ineffective control in a situation where injury could reasonably be expected, judged by the dog's past behavior and the foreseeable harm (Arnold v. Laird, 94 Wn.2d 867, 621 P.2d 138 (1980))⁹. Arnold added that keeping a dog with no dangerous tendencies in a fenced backyard is not unreasonable in itself⁹. These theories matter for injuries the statute does not reach, such as being knocked down without a bite, and for claims against keepers who are not owners^8,9.

Defenses owners raise

Provocation

"Proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense" under RCW 16.08.060³. The statute does not define provocation; its text speaks only of provocation "by the injured person"³.

Trespassing

The statute protects only people lawfully on private property. Consent is not presumed on fenced or posted land, so a bite through or over a fence may fall outside it, as in Sligar v. Odell, 156 Wn. App. 720, 233 P.3d 914 (2010)^2,10.

Police dogs

RCW 16.08.040 does not apply to the lawful application of a police dog. A handler who uses a police dog in good faith in the line of duty is immune from civil suit, and the agency is not strictly liable for lawful use (RCW 4.24.410, as amended in 2024)¹⁷.

Other defense

Not the owner: the statute binds only the owner, not a mere keeper, though a person who lives with and cares for a dog can be found to own it. A keeper or harborer can still be sued under common law^8,11.

Shared fault

Pure comparative fault (RCW 4.22.005).

Any contributory fault of the claimant "diminishes proportionately" the award "but does not bar recovery"⁶. "Fault" expressly includes conduct that subjects a person to strict tort liability, so a statutory dog bite award is reduced by the victim's share too⁷. In Gorman v. Pierce County, a case brought under RCW 16.08.040, the jury apportioned a small share of fault to the bitten woman, and the Court of Appeals upheld that finding¹⁴. Provocation is different: under RCW 16.08.060 it defeats the claim entirely³. In Arnold the Supreme Court noted that a 4-year-old was incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law⁹.

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

Washington dog bite statute of limitations

3 years (RCW 4.16.080(2))

A suit for "any other injury to the person" must be filed within three years, which runs from the bite⁴. A claim against a city, county or other local government, or the state, must first be presented on the standard tort claim form, and no suit may be filed until 60 calendar days later; the limitation period is tolled during those 60 days¹⁵. The same 60-day rule applies to claims against the state, which go to the Office of Risk Management¹⁶²⁹.

Children. Time while the injured person is under 18 does not count, so a bitten child has until three years after their 18th birthday. The statute sets no cap on that tolling⁵.

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

Damages

The statute allows "such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten": medical bills, lost earnings, pain and suffering, scarring and emotional distress¹. Washington has no cap on noneconomic damages; the Supreme Court struck down the 1986 cap in Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989), as a violation of the right to a jury¹⁸. Punitive damages are not available unless a statute authorizes them (Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 129 Wn.2d 572, 919 P.2d 589 (1996)), and no dog bite statute does¹⁹. A dog that kills or injures another animal makes its owner or keeper liable to that animal's owner under RCW 16.08.010³⁰.

Landlords and property owners

Claims against a landlord rarely succeed in Washington. In Clemmons v. Fidler, 58 Wn. App. 32, 791 P.2d 257 (1990), the court held that a landlord is not liable for a tenant's dog even if the landlord knew it was vicious: only the owner, keeper or harborer is¹¹. The Supreme Court adopted that rule in Frobig v. Gordon, 124 Wn.2d 732, 881 P.2d 226 (1994), holding that landlords have no duty to protect third parties from a tenant's lawfully owned dangerous animals¹². In Saralegui Blanco v. Gonzalez Sandoval, 197 Wn.2d 553, 485 P.3d 326 (2021), it rejected a premises-liability route: a dog is not a "condition on the land", and a landlord who does not possess or control the area owes no duty¹³. More on landlord liability.

Insurance

As of October 2026, no Washington statute limits insurers' use of dog breed in homeowners or renters underwriting. A bill to bar breed-based denials, HB 1634, died in committee in 2023–2024, as an earlier one did in 2005²⁸. The owner of a declared dangerous dog must carry a surety bond or liability policy of at least $250,000 to register the dog²¹.

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

Suing the county that ignored complaints

A local government can sometimes be liable for failing to act on a dangerous dog. In Gorman v. Pierce County, 176 Wn. App. 63, 307 P.3d 795 (2013), two dogs walked into a woman's house and mauled her. She sued the owners under RCW 16.08.040 and sued the county for its handling of earlier complaints about the dogs¹⁴. Governments usually escape such claims under the "public duty doctrine", but the court applied its "failure to enforce" exception because the county had a mandatory duty to act under its own code, and it affirmed the verdict¹⁴. A claim like this needs a statute or ordinance that makes action mandatory. It also has to start with a tort claim form and the 60-day waiting period¹⁵.

Bite reports and quarantine

Since the 2023 revision of the notifiable-conditions rules, a bite is reportable to the state system only when human rabies exposure is suspected. Health care providers and facilities must report such a bite immediately to the local health jurisdiction²⁶. The Department of Health tells bitten people to wash the wound with soap and water and contact their health care provider and local health department²⁷.

When a local health officer learns that a dog, cat or ferret has bitten a person, the officer may order a healthy animal "confined in a manner the local health officer considers appropriate and observed daily for at least ten days", with any illness reported. If signs of rabies appear, the officer may order it euthanized and tested²⁵. Home or shelter confinement is the officer's call. A stray or unwanted dog may be euthanized and tested immediately²⁵. The state rule does not say who pays for confinement. Bats are the only known rabies carrier in Washington²⁷.

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

Questions about Washington dog bite law

Is Washington a one-bite state?

No, not for bites. Under RCW 16.08.040 the owner is liable for a bite in a public place or where you were lawfully present even if the dog never showed aggression before¹. The one-bite idea survives only for claims the statute does not cover, such as a dog knocking someone down without biting, where you must prove the owner knew of a dangerous propensity or was negligent⁹. See the one-bite rule.

Can I sue if a friend's dog bit me in their home?

Yes, in most cases. Since 1979 the statute has covered anyone on the owner's property with express or implied consent, which includes invited guests^2,8. Before then, Washington courts held that social guests were outside the statute⁸.

The dog belonged to my landlord's tenant. Can I sue the property owner?

Almost never. Washington courts hold that only the owner, keeper or harborer is liable, not the landlord, even one who knew the dog was vicious^11,12. In 2021 the Supreme Court also rejected the argument that a tenant's dog is a dangerous condition on the property¹³.

My child was bitten. How long do we have?

The three-year limit does not run while the child is under 18, so a suit can be filed up to the child's 21st birthday^4,5. In Arnold v. Laird the Supreme Court noted that a 4-year-old was incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law⁹. See child dog bites.

What if a dog attacked my dog?

RCW 16.08.040 covers bites to people only. RCW 16.08.010 makes the owner or keeper of a dog liable to the owner of any animal it kills or injures, plus costs of collection³⁰. A dog that kills a domestic animal without provocation off its owner's property can be declared dangerous²⁰. See dog attacked my dog.

Official contacts

Sources

1. RCW 16.08.040 Dog bites — Liability, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
2. RCW 16.08.050 Entrance on private property, when lawful, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
3. RCW 16.08.060 Provocation as a defense, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
4. RCW 4.16.080 Actions limited to three years, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
5. RCW 4.16.190 Statute tolled by personal disability, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
6. RCW 4.22.005 Effect of contributory fault, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
7. RCW 4.22.015 "Fault" defined, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
8. Beeler v. Hickman, 50 Wn. App. 746, 750 P.2d 1282 (1988), CourtListener (Washington Court of Appeals opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
9. Arnold v. Laird, 94 Wn.2d 867, 621 P.2d 138 (1980), CourtListener (Washington Supreme Court opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
10. Sligar v. Odell, 156 Wn. App. 720, 233 P.3d 914 (2010), CourtListener (Washington Court of Appeals opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
11. Clemmons v. Fidler, 58 Wn. App. 32, 791 P.2d 257 (1990), CourtListener (Washington Court of Appeals opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
12. Frobig v. Gordon, 124 Wn.2d 732, 881 P.2d 226 (1994), CourtListener (Washington Supreme Court opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
13. Saralegui Blanco v. Gonzalez Sandoval, 197 Wn.2d 553, 485 P.3d 326 (2021), CourtListener (Washington Supreme Court opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
14. Gorman v. Pierce County, 176 Wn. App. 63, 307 P.3d 795 (2013), CourtListener (Washington Court of Appeals opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
15. RCW 4.96.020 Claims against local governmental entities, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
16. RCW 4.92.110 Claims against the state — presentment prerequisite to suit, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
17. RCW 4.24.410 Police dogs — Immunity, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
18. Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989), CourtListener (Washington Supreme Court opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
19. Dailey v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 129 Wn.2d 572, 919 P.2d 589 (1996), CourtListener (Washington Supreme Court opinion). Checked 17 October 2026.
20. RCW 16.08.070 Dangerous dogs and related definitions, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
21. RCW 16.08.080 Dangerous dogs — Notice, appeal, registration, bond, insurance, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
22. RCW 16.08.090 Dangerous dogs — Requirements for restraint, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
23. RCW 16.08.100 Dangerous dogs — Confiscation, penalties, affirmative defenses, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
24. RCW 16.08.110 Breed-based regulations, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
25. WAC 246-100-197 Rabies — Measures to prevent human disease, Washington State Legislature (Department of Health rule). Checked 17 October 2026.
26. Rabies, Suspected Human Exposure — Notifiable Condition, Washington State Department of Health. Checked 17 October 2026.
27. Rabies, Washington State Department of Health. Checked 17 October 2026.
28. HB 1634 (2023–24), Concerning residential insurance policies — bill history, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
29. File a Tort Claim, Washington State Department of Enterprise Services. Checked 17 October 2026.
30. RCW 16.08.010 Liability for injury to stock by dogs, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.
31. RCW 9A.20.021 Maximum sentences, Washington State Legislature. Checked 17 October 2026.