Assembly set to pass dog-liability bill

Listen to this article

A proposal to modify the state’s statutes on dog liability may be on its way to Gov. Scott Walker’s desk.

Current law holds dog owners liable when their pets damage property or injure people or other domestic animals. Owners are also generally liable for double damages if it can be shown that they knew their dog had previously damaged property or injured someone.

The penalties range from $50 to $500 in forfeitures. If an injury is caused by a dog whose owners knew it had destroyed property or injured someone previously, the upper limit of the forfeiture penalty increases to $1,000.

Also, states and municipalities have the right to ask that a court order police to kill a dog. The order may only be issued if the dog has caused serious injury to a person or animal on two separate occasions and the attacks took place off of the owner’s property and were without reasonable cause, and the owner knew before the second injury that the dog had caused the first.

Under the bill now before lawmakers, owners could be held liable only for dog bites that occur without provocation and that break the skin and leave a scar. It also increases the upper limits for the penalty to $2,000 and $5,000 for owners who knew a dog had previously caused damage or an injury.

The bill would also let people who are injured by a dog or whose pet or child is injured by a dog ask that a court order that the dog be killed.

The state Assembly is scheduled to vote on the bill on Tuesday. The Senate passed the same proposal on Oct. 20, so it needs only the Assembly’s approval and Walker’s signature to become law.

The proposal stalled for several days in the Senate Committee on Housing and Real Estate after a public hearing, but the panel eventually approved the bill on a 5-0 vote Oct. 15.

Supporters have said the bill would clarify the statute, lower the cost of insurance coverage for people who own dogs, especially those in rural parts of the state, and reduce the amount of litigation needed for individual claims.

Opponents of the proposal have said the bill could create privacy problems that would affect victims of dog bites and attorney involved in litigating dog bite cases.