Return to your topic: The One Bite Rule
The dangerous propensity that is required in a dog bite case is the tendency of the dog to bite a person without provocation. It does not matter whether the intention of the dog is to guide or herd, as in a collie, or to kill, as in a fighting dog. The intention of the dog is legally immaterial. What matters is that the dog has the tendency to bite, because dog bites are intolerable. Furthermore, it is not necessary to prove that the dog previously bit a person, because the gist of the tort is keeping a dog that indicated it wanted to bite humans.
The common law developed the concept of dangerous propensity to determine legal liability in all cases where a domestic animal caused injury. The traditional formulation, set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, ยง 509 (above), refers simply to "a domestic animal" and not specifically a dog. To analyze a dog bite case, therefore, one must focus on the actions of the dog that are legally sufficient to enable the jury to conclude that the dog owner either knew or reasonably should have known that his dog would someday bite a person.
It has generally been held that the prior behavior of the dog in a bite case must consist of proof of a vicious temperament. Such proof can consist of one or more actions of the dog, such as a bite, a snap, growling, lunging, or chasing people or animals. If the proof is limited to an act that was not a bite or attempt to bite, however, the parties must determine whether the courts having jurisdiction of the case did not previously rule that such behavior was insufficient proof as a matter of law. For example, it is often held that merely chasing animals does not establish proof of a dangerous propensity to attack humans.
Here are some of the characteristics of a dog that were held to support a finding of dangerous propensity:
The following facts were deemed insufficient to prove the dangerous propensity to bite a person:
"Your valuable information on Dog Bite Law and our private conversations inspired a governing authority and protected the career of a bright young public servant. Your hard work was properly sited and credited at the end of my speech. IPBO Local 702 owes you a debt of gratitude."
Sincerely in your debt,
Joe E.