One “free bite rule” had been an erroneous law that for many years deterred bite victims from proper compensation because the victim could not prove that the owner has actual or constructive knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities.  However, in 2007 Tennessee established strict liability for certain dog bite injuries but not others. The Dianna Acklen Act of 2007 (T.C.A. sec. 44-8-413) provides statutory liability for dog bites under specific circumstances.

Subdivision (a) creates a two-part duty: a dog must be under reasonable control and not running at large. The duty is violated when a dog is not under reasonable control even if it is not running at large (for example, a dog running loose on the owner’s unfenced front lawn). “A person who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in or on the private property of another.”

However, the legislature in their often erroneous legislation allowed certain exceptions to remain.  There is no liability for a dog that is doing police or military work or protecting someone from being attacked, or is securely confined in a kennel or something similar. There is no liability if the victim provoked the dog. There is no liability for an attack that occurs on residential, farm or other noncommercial property owned, rented or leased by the dog owner, or occupied by the dog owner with permission, unless the victim proves scienter. This last exception is referred to as the “residential exception.”

A dog owner may be held civilly liable for the damages caused by his dog under the “scienter” cause of action, also known as “common law strict liability” and the “one bite rule.” In Fletcher v. Richardson, 603 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Tenn. 1980), the court stated:

“The owner or keeper of the dog is not answerable for injuries done by it when in a place it had a right to be, unless the dog was in fact vicious or otherwise dangerous, the owner or keeper knew, or under the circumstances should have known, of the dangerous disposition of the animal, and the injuries resulted from the known vicious or dangerous propensity of the animal. The basic key to recovery of damages for injuries caused by a dog is the knowledge of the owner or keeper that the animal is vicious or has mischievous propensities.”

Plaintiffs suing for injuries or death caused by a dog bite must prove three elements. “First, they must prove that the defendant owned the dog. Second, they must prove that the defendant’s dog caused the injuries. Third, they must prove that the defendants knew or should have known about the dog’s dangerous propensities.” Eden v. Johnson, No. 01A01-9603-CV-00141, 1996 WL 474428, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App., Aug. 21, 1996) (citing Thompson v. Thompson, 749 S.W.2d 468, 470 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988)); See Fletcher v. Richardson, 603 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Tenn. 1980) (“the basic key to recovery of damages for injuries caused by a dog is the knowledge of the owner or keeper that the animal is vicious or has mischievous propensities”).

PASSIONATE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE

Thank you for your interest. To contact Mumford Law, complete the form below.

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Real-life results

See what happy clients are saying about me.

Had a legal question and was referred to Roland Mumford. I called and he answered the phone, which was surprising but refreshing. He answered all my questions quickly and concisely. I appreciate the response and information. A good service to our community.read more
Jamison E.
Jamison E.
22:06 15 Jul 24
I called Mr Mumford from a referral source . He was immediate in his response time , thorough and detail oriented and specific to my situation. His ability to provide me communication that was clear and understood. I gave him details of my situation and he was able to research , investigate and problem solve. He was direct and knowledgeable . I can’t praise him enough … I Highly recommend Mr Roland MUMFORD ATTORNEY IN Hendersonville.read more
Summer Bentley
Summer Bentley
20:02 07 May 24
If you want an attorney who is competent, this is your guy!!! He will not hold your hand, coddle or placate you. He will lay out the best and worst case scenarios for how your case can go. He will get in touch with you when necessary but won’t call to chit chat. I have needed three criminal attorneys in my lifetime & Mr. Mumford is the only one I would recommend.read more
Marcy
Marcy
00:45 07 Apr 24
Mr. Mumford came to us highly recommended and he didn’t disappoint. He was very helpful, resourceful, knowledgeable and responsive with the many challenging factors involved in my family’s case.read more
Janel Saar
Janel Saar
23:11 28 Feb 24