Despite what people may think about dog bite cases, they can be legally complex, and the path to holding a dog owner liable in Kansas depends heavily on the nature of the claim. Kansas law, which adopts the Second Restatement of Torts, recognizes two primary types of dog bite claims: (1) negligence and (2) strict liability. Each claim has distinct requirements and understanding them is essential for both dog owners and those injured by dogs in Kansas. 
Negligence Claims in Kansas Dog Bite Cases
A negligence claim in Kansas requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that a dog owner failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm. This principle was established by the Kansas Supreme Court in Gardner v. Koenig and later by the Kansas Court of Appeals case Mercer v. Fritts. Kansas courts have held that even an “ordinarily gentle animal” can cause foreseeable harm under particular circumstances, requiring dog owners to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries.
The Kansas Pattern Jury Instructions (PIK Civ. 4th 126.92) set the standard for negligence claims involving animal attacks, and these instructions follow the rules laid out in the Gardner Supreme Court case. Importantly, negligence does not require that a plaintiff prove the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities. The focus is on whether the dog owner exercised reasonable care given the circumstances.
Strict Liability and the Requirement of Knowledge
Strict liability, on the other hand, involves a higher burden of proof. A plaintiff in Kansas must show that the dog owner had actual or constructive knowledge that the dog had dangerous tendencies. The rule for strict liability is reflected in PIK Civ. 4th 126.91 and was articulated in case titled Mills v. Smith. Essentially, if a dog has shown vicious behavior before, or if the owner reasonably should have known about such behavior, the owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog.
This knowledge requirement creates a clear distinction between strict liability and negligence in Kansas law. If the plaintiff cannot show knowledge, then a strict liability claim cannot succeed, but the plaintiff may still pursue a negligence claim if they can prove the owner failed to act reasonably in preventing foreseeable harm.
Misconceptions and Legal Misapplications
One of the primary challenges in Kansas dog bite law is the confusion between negligence and strict liability standards. This confusion often appears in legal arguments, as some mistakenly assert that all dog bite claims require proof of the owner’s knowledge of a dog’s viciousness. However, as highlighted in Kansas appellate cases, such as Hopkins v. McCollam, courts have sometimes conflated the two theories, applying strict liability requirements to negligence claims.
Practical Takeaways for Dog Owners and Victims
If you or a loved one have been injured by a dog in Kansas, it is crucial to understand which legal theory applies:
- For a Negligence Claim: You must show that the dog owner failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm, even if the dog had no history of aggression.
- For a Strict Liability Claim: You must prove that the dog owner knew, or should have known, that the dog had dangerous tendencies.
Kansas law recognizes these two separate causes of action for good reason. Dog owners need to be vigilant about their pets’ behaviors and surroundings, even if their dog seems friendly. All animals can become dangerous under certain circumstances, and failing to anticipate this can result in liability.
The Impact of Recent Cases and Jury Instructions
Kansas cases like Henkel v. Jordan and Steinman illustrate the courts’ nuanced approach to foreseeability and knowledge. The Henkel case, which involved a dog’s “menacing behavior,” found that even behavior short of a bite could support a claim if it created a foreseeable risk of harm. In contrast, the Steinman case emphasized the importance of the similarity between prior behaviors and the injury that ultimately occurred.
The Importance of Insurance
Nearly all the time, dog bite claims are handled through the dog owner’s homeowners or renters’ insurance policies. The terms and coverage limits of these policies can vary significantly, and sometimes certain breeds of dogs are excluded from coverage, leaving the dog owner on the hook for potential damages. Some Kansas insurance policies may also exclude dogs with known histories of aggression. In situations where the dog’s owner is a tenant rather than a homeowner, renters’ insurance may provide similar coverage. Typically, renters’ insurance policies have lower coverages than homeowners insurance policies.
If the dog owner lacks insurance or their policy’s limits are insufficient to cover the victim's damages, the injured party may consider pursuing a direct legal action against the owner. That means that the dog owner is personally liable for the bite and any jury award that the victim receives. Unfortunately, if the dog owner lacks both insurance and sufficient personal assets, recovering compensation can be challenging and not worth pursuing.
In 2022, dog-related injury claims in the United States amounted to more than $1 billion, representing a significant increase in total payouts despite a decrease in the number of claims. According to one report, the number of dog bite claims dropped 2.2% to 17,597 from 17,989 in 2021. However, the average cost per claim surged by 31.7% to $64,555. This increase in costs is attributed to higher medical expenses and rising settlement amounts in dog bite cases.
Clarifying Kansas Dog Bite Law
In summary, while the presence or absence of a dog’s aggressive history may determine the success of a strict liability claim, it does not bar a negligence claim. We believe that dog owner in Kansas can still be found negligent if they fail to exercise reasonable care, regardless of prior incidents. This distinction is critical for anyone involved in a dog bite case, and understanding it can mean the difference between a successful claim and a dismissed case.
If you are dealing with a dog bite injury, it is essential to consult with a knowledgeable Kansas personal injury attorney who can navigate the complexities of these claims and advocate on your behalf. If you or someone you love is injured in a dog attack in Kansas, the award-winning personal injury attorneys at Foster Wallace is always ready, willing, and able to serve you.
