What happens if my dog bites a vet? Here’s What to Do Next

by

Vets as “Owners” or “Keepers” of Dogs They Treat

Aside from the assumption-of-risk rule, courts have found other ways to rule out lawsuits by vets and other animal workers who are bitten on the job. Someone whos taking care of a dog may be just as liable as the legal owner in lawsuits based on dog-bite statutes, negligence, or the “one-bite rule.” Many courts have found that vets, vet technicians, groomers, and kennel operators should be considered the owners or “keepers” of dogs under their care—which means they dont have the right to sue the animals legal owners for bites or other injuries that happened at the time. (See, for example, Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 549 N.W. 2d 723 (Wis. 1996) and Salisbury v. Ferioli, 730 N.E.2d 363 (Mass. Ct. App. 2000).)

Not all courts agree with this reasoning, however. Iowas Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of a dog owner in that states law (which includes “any person who keeps or harbors a dog”) refers to people who have permanent possession of the animals, not to temporary custodians like groomers (Collins v. Kenealy, 492 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 1992)).

  • If my states law says the owner isnt liable when a dog bites someone who provoked it, can I argue that the vet technicians provoked my terrified dog by holding her down roughly and drawing blood without giving her a sedative?
  • Ive heard that in my state, I cant stop a vets lawsuit because he assumed the risk that my dog would bite him. But could that assumption of risk affect the amount of money the jury might award the vet?
  • I know that my dog gets nervous at the vets, so I asked to be in the room during the treatment and keep my hand on him to keep him calm. It didnt work, and he bit the vet. If I was there, can the vet still be considered the “keeper” or “owner” for purposes of my states dog-bite statute?

    • Dog-Bite Statutes and the Assumption-of-Risk Defense

    Most states in the U.S. have so-called “strict liability” dog-bite laws that make owners liable for most dog bites even if they were careless or knew that their animals could be dangerous. These laws often include specific exceptions. But almost all of those exceptions apply when the victim was provoking the dog, trespassing, or doing something else illegal.

    Some courts—such as in California—have recognized that the assumption-of-risk defense applies when vets or other animal workers sue under a strict liability dog-bite statute, even though the law doesnt specifically say that (see Nelson v. Hall, 165 Cal.App.3d 709 (Cal. 1990)). But in several other states—including Arizona and Ohio—courts have ruled that the only defenses are the ones specifically listed in the dog-bite statute, which means that owners may not use the assumption-of-risk defense to get out of their liability for the injuries (see Massey v. Colaric, 725 P.2d 1099 (Ariz. 1986) and Pulley v. Malek, 495 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio 1986)).

    When Can an ARO Declare a Dog “Dangerous”?

    A dog becomes a physical threat to humans or animals two times within 18 months if:

    • He behaves menacingly or bites someone.
    • He bites someone without causing substantial bodily harm.

    • Without considering prior behavior, the dog’s actions constitute a threat to humans and animals when:

    • The owner uses the dog to commit a crime.
    • The dog causes serious injury or death to another animal that isn’t at large or in violation of a statute.
    • An Animal Control Officer believes the dog is a threat to public safety.

    • Dog Bites Dog – Vet Advice