Dog bites can be traumatic, painful, and financially overwhelming. Whether you’re coping with emergency medical bills, scarring, infection risks, or emotional trauma, victims often face significant challenges after an attack. Understanding your legal rights is the first step toward rebuilding. When it comes to dog bite laws in Utah, the state is especially protective of victims, offering one of the easiest compensation paths in the nation.
However, many people still wonder whether Utah’s approach is the most balanced or if the “one bite rule,” used by many other states, would be a better alternative. This blog breaks down these two systems, explains why the difference matters, and outlines how these laws impact people across St. George and Southern Utah.
Understanding Strict Liability in Utah
Utah follows a strict liability standard for dog bites. Under this law, if a dog bites someone, the owner is automatically responsible for all resulting damages—regardless of the dog’s history or temperament. The victim doesn’t need to prove negligence, carelessness, or previous aggression.
This makes Utah’s dog bite laws straightforward, predictable, and highly victim-friendly.
What Strict Liability Means for Victims
Victims can recover damages by proving only two things:
A dog bit them
The person they’re suing owns or controls the dog
There’s no need to show that the owner failed to restrain the dog or should have known it might bite.
Why and How Utah’s Law Protects Victims
Strict liability simplifies the legal process and helps ensure victims get support quickly. This approach offers:
Faster compensation
Less legal burden
Clear accountability
Fewer prolonged disputes
For individuals dealing with painful injuries and unexpected medical bills, this structure helps significantly.
Insurance and Compensation After a Dog Bite
Most dog bite claims in Utah are paid through the dog owner’s homeowner’s insurance, which can cover:
Emergency room visits
Follow-up medical care
Surgery or reconstruction
Lost income
Scarring and disfigurement
Emotional distress
Because insurance often covers the damages, victims typically avoid uncomfortable personal conflicts with the dog owner.
Limited Exceptions
There are few exceptions to strict liability. An owner may not be responsible if the victim was trespassing, provoking the dog, or committing a crime. Outside of these rare situations, the owner is almost always liable.
The One Bite Rule Explained
Many states take a different approach known as the ‘one bite rule’. This rule doesn’t hold dog owners automatically responsible for the first bite. Instead, liability applies only if the victim can prove the owner knew the dog had dangerous tendencies.
Key Features of the One Bite Rule
First Bite Forgiveness
An owner often avoids liability if the dog has never bitten or acted aggressively before.Proof of Knowledge Required
Victims must show that the owner knew—or reasonably should have known—the dog could bite. This may involve evidence such as prior bites, growling, lunging, or complaints.Longer, More Complex Cases
These cases often require witnesses, records, and extensive investigation.
Why Some States Use This Approach
Supporters of the one bite rule argue it protects responsible dog owners from sudden, unpredictable first-time incidents. However, this leaves many victims—especially first-time bite victims—without compensation.
How These Laws Impact Everyday Situations
The difference between strict liability and the one bite rule matters most for people who regularly interact with dogs or encounter them in public spaces.
- Delivery Drivers and Postal Workers- These workers frequently face unexpected dog encounters. Under strict liability, they are protected even if it’s the dog’s first bite. Under the one bite rule, they may have no compensation options initially.
- Children- Children are more vulnerable due to their size and natural curiosity. Utah’s strict liability law ensures families do not face extra legal barriers during an already frightening time.
- Park-Goers, Joggers, and Neighbors
Public parks, neighborhoods, and sidewalks all carry unpredictability. Strict liability provides peace of mind and makes legal outcomes far more consistent.
Which Law Is Better for Utah?
Many Southern Utah residents wonder which law serves the community best. Both approaches have pros and cons.
Benefits of Strict Liability
Protects victims immediately
Creates predictable outcomes
Encourages responsible dog ownership
Avoids drawn-out legal battles
Benefits of the One Bite Rule
Offers leniency for first-time incidents
Can feel fairer for responsible dog owners
However, Utah has chosen to prioritize victim protection. With population growth, more dog ownership, and busy neighborhoods, strict liability helps ensure the community remains safe and victims are cared for.
Even so, the discussion continues. Should Utah revisit its approach? Or is strict liability still the fairest system? Your voice as a community member matters.
McMullin Injury Law and Dog Bites
Understanding dog bite laws in Utah is essential for both dog owners and victims. Utah’s strict liability approach provides strong, immediate protections, but navigating the insurance process and legal system can still feel overwhelming.
McMullin Injury Law is here to help families across St. George and Southern Utah understand their rights and seek the compensation they deserve. If you or someone you love has been injured by a dog, reach out to us for a free consultation. Our experienced St. George personal injury attorneys are ready to guide you every step of the way.
Transcription
You decide. We want your feedback on what’s a better law for dog bites. Is it the strict liability like Utah follows, or the ‘one bite rule’ like many other states follow? The difference is pretty severe. So in Utah, we follow strict liability when it comes to dog bites. Meaning when our dog bites someone, we’re automatically responsible for the damage that’s caused by our dog and our homeowner’s. Insurance pays that out to them to take care of ’em, cover their medical, whatever they need. We’re liable automatically with very few exceptions to that.
In some other states, they use negligence, meaning you have to prove the dog owner’s negligence is what caused the dog to bite you. It’s not just as simple as did the dog bite you? Period. And the way that they determine negligence in those states is often what’s called the ‘one bite rule’, where basically you have to know that your dog was a biter or was vicious.
And the way that they deem you to have known is if your dog bit somebody before, meaning your dog gets one free bite. So for every dog you get, they can bite somebody one time. And you are not responsible for the damage caused by your dog until the victim can prove that your dog has bit somebody before and you were aware of it, and therefore were on notice and should have prevented your dog biting a person the second time.
And so it makes a big difference for people that might get bit by dogs and people that work in as delivery drivers or in door-to-door industries. Those people get bit by dogs. And so it really can make a difference for those people or for little kids that are just out at the park and a strange dog comes up. So we want to know here in St. George, Utah, what’s your opinion? What should the law be? Should it be the strict liability law like we use in Utah? Or is the one bite rule, knowing that your dog was a biter, is that actually a better law that Utah should switch to?
Let us know in the comments.
