Strict Liability Basis: Legal Responsibility in Dog Bite Cases

Question: What must be proven to establish liability in a dog bite case in Ontario?

Answer: To establish liability under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, it must be shown that the defendant owns the dog, the dog bit or attacked the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered injury or damages as a result; once these facts are verified, liability is presumed, making it crucial for victims to understand their rights promptly.

Proving Liability In Dog Bite Cases

In Ontario, dog bite incidents are governed by the Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, which establishes a strict liability regime for dog owners, meaning that a dog owner may be held liable for damages caused by the dog without the need to prove fault, negligence, or prior knowledge of aggressive tendencies.  Accordingly, a dog bite victim may make out a successful case without proving a failure of due care by the dog owner.

The Law

Unlike most civil law matters, in a dog bite case, the Plaintiff, being the victim, is without the burden to prove that the Defendant, being the dog owner, acted without due care contrary to the conduct of a reasonable and prudent dog owner.  This removal of common negligence law principles is statutorily prescribed by the Dog Owners' Liability Act wherein it is said:

As shown above, to establish legal liability under the Dog Owners' Liability Act, a Plaintiff needs only to prove three key facts:

• The defendant is the owner of the dog;
• The dog bit or attacked the plaintiff; and
• The plaintiff suffered injury or damages as a result.

Once these facts are established, a prima facie case is made out and liability is presumed.

Potential Damages Reductions

Although liability under the Dog Owners' Liability Act is strict, damages may be reduced if the conduct of the dog bite victim contributed to the injury.  Accordingly, if the injured party provoked the dog or behaved in a way that contributed to the attack, the liability award for damages may be apportioned accordingly.  This potential for an apportionment of liability upon the dog bite victim is prescribed as follows:

Furthermore, a dog owner may seek to avoid liability, shift liability, or share liability, whereas the Dog Owners' Liability Act contains provisions:

• Involving Multiple Owners:
  Whereas if there are multiple owners of the subject dog, the other owners are jointly and severally liable for damages - see section 2(2);
• Involving Third-Party Contribution:
  Whereas a dog owner who is strictly liable to the dog bite victim may recover contribution from any other person, such as a dog walker or other person in care and control of the dog, whose fault or negligence contributed to the damages - see section 2(4); and
• Involving Criminal Acts Upon the Premises:
  Whereas if the dog bite occurred while the injured party was committing a criminal act upon the property, liability may be excluded unless it was unreasonable in the circumstances to keep the dog for protection - see section 3(2).

Conclusion

Under Ontario law, the legal test for liability in dog bite cases is governed by strict liability principles found in the Dog Owners' Liability Act and once ownership, injury, and the act of the bite or attack are proven, liability follows — subject only to potential reductions in damages.