By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Bitten by a dog?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
How RCW 16.08.040 works
The statute has three parts. The defendant must be the dog’s owner. The person must have been bitten. And the bite must have happened in a public place or while the person was lawfully on private property, which includes the owner’s own property. When those facts are proven, the owner is liable regardless of the dog’s former viciousness or the owner’s knowledge of it.
You are lawfully on private property if the owner gave express or implied consent, but consent is not presumed when the property is fenced or reasonably posted (RCW 16.08.050). A guest invited to a backyard party is covered. A person who climbs a fenced yard marked with a warning sign may not be. The statute does not apply to the lawful use of a police dog.
Provocation and shared fault
“Proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense to an action for damages,” the statute says (RCW 16.08.060). What counts as provocation depends on the facts, which is why witness accounts and video matter so much.
Short of provocation, an owner may argue the injured person was partly careless. Washington uses pure comparative fault: your share of fault reduces your damages proportionately but does not bar recovery (RCW 4.22.005). “Fault” includes unreasonable assumption of risk and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury (RCW 4.22.015). Example only: if a jury set damages at $100,000 and found the injured person 20% at fault, the award would be $80,000. Our page on comparative fault compares the three states.
Injuries without a bite
RCW 16.08.040 covers a “person bitten.” A large dog that knocks over a jogger or jumps on an older neighbor causes real injuries that fall outside it.
Those claims run on common law. In Arnold v. Laird (1980), the Washington Supreme Court described two routes. One who keeps a dog and knows or reasonably should know it has dangerous propensities can be strictly liable. Without that knowledge, a negligence claim arises when there is ineffective control of an animal in a situation where injury could reasonably be expected, and injury results. The court described these rules in terms of a person who keeps a dog, while the statute names only the owner. Proof of the dog’s history, such as earlier complaints or a dangerous-dog finding, carries much more weight in these cases.
Free case review
Tell us what happened. We will tell you plainly whether there is a case and what to do next. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Dangerous dog rules
Chapter 16.08 also sets rules for dogs that have already hurt someone (full chapter text).
| Rule | What it says | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Definitions | A “dangerous dog” includes one that inflicts severe injury on a person without provocation. “Severe injury” means broken bones or disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery. | RCW 16.08.070 |
| Registration | The owner needs a certificate showing a proper enclosure, a warning sign, and a surety bond or liability policy of at least $250,000. The owner can appeal a final determination within 20 days. | RCW 16.08.080 |
| Restraint | Outside its enclosure, a dangerous dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash. Potentially dangerous dogs are regulated by local ordinance. | RCW 16.08.090 |
| Penalties | A dangerous dog without valid registration, coverage or enclosure is confiscated. An owner whose dog aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death can be convicted of a class C felony; the state must show the owner knew or should have known the dog was potentially dangerous, and breed alone does not prove that. | RCW 16.08.100 |
After a bite report, the local health officer may also order a healthy dog confined and observed daily for at least 10 days to watch for rabies (WAC 246-100-197). Any criminal charge is a decision for prosecutors and runs separately from your injury claim.
Landlords and people other than the owner
A landlord who has handed a rental over to the tenant usually owes no duty for the tenant’s dog in Washington. In Saralegui Blanco v. Gonzalez Sandoval (2021), a visitor was bitten at a single-family rental. The Washington Supreme Court held that the landlords, who had given up possession to the tenants, owed the visitor no duty, and it followed earlier cases holding that a landlord’s knowledge of a dangerous dog is not enough by itself. The court treated a common area under the landlord’s control as a separate situation, so the layout of the property and who controlled the spot where the attack happened both matter.
Deadlines and how Washington compares
Most Washington injury lawsuits must be filed within three years (RCW 4.16.080). For a child, the years before age 18 generally do not count (RCW 4.16.190). If a city or county dog is involved, a claim must be presented first, and no lawsuit may be filed until 60 days after that (RCW 4.96.020).
| Bite rule | Deadline to sue | Shared fault | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Washington | Owner liable for bites in public or on property where you were lawfully present | 3 years | Reduces damages, never a bar by itself |
| California | Same basic rule (Civ. Code 3342) | 2 years (CCP 335.1) | Reduces damages (Li v. Yellow Cab) |
| Texas | Strict liability for an animal known to be vicious; otherwise negligence (Marshall v. Ranne) | 2 years (CPRC 16.003) | Bars recovery above 50% (CPRC 33.001) |
Read more in our California dog bite law guide and Is Texas a one-bite state?. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou.
What this means for your case
Start with two facts: whether the dog bit you, and where you were. A bite in public or on property where you were welcome points to RCW 16.08.040, and the main fight is usually over provocation. A knock-down calls for proof of the dog’s history or the handler’s lack of control. Ask animal control for its file on the dog, and keep the names of anyone who saw what happened. Our dog bite evidence page lists what to gather. Beverly Law represents injured people across Washington, and more answers are on our injury law FAQs page.
Common questions
Does Washington follow a one-bite rule?
Not for bites. RCW 16.08.040 applies regardless of the dog’s past or what the owner knew. The dog’s history still matters for injuries without a bite.
What if a dog knocked me down but did not bite me?
The bite statute will not apply. You would need to show that the keeper knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous tendencies, or that the dog was not under effective control.
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in Washington?
Generally three years under RCW 4.16.080. For a child, the time before age 18 generally does not count.
Can I sue the landlord where the dog lives?
Usually not when the landlord has handed possession of the rental to the tenant. A common area the landlord controls raises different questions.
Does the law cover police dog bites?
Not when the police dog was used lawfully. RCW 16.08.040 does not apply to the lawful use of a police dog. Beverly Law offers a free case review in English or Spanish at (310) 552-6959. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
Injury lawyer — Beverly Law
Hurt because of someone else in California, Texas and Washington? Talk to an injury attorney. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Related pages
Sources
- RCW 16.08.040 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 16.08.050 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 16.08.060 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 16.08.070 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 16.08.080 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 16.08.090 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 16.08.100 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW chapter 16.08, full text (Washington Legislature PDF) (lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.22.005 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.22.015 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- Arnold v. Laird, 94 Wn.2d 867 (1980) (law.justia.com)
- Saralegui Blanco v. Gonzalez Sandoval, No. 98221-0 (Wash. Apr. 29, 2021) (courts.wa.gov)
- WAC 246-100-197 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.16.080 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.16.190 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 4.96.020 (app.leg.wa.gov)
- Cal. Civil Code 3342 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 335.1 (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov)
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 (scocal.stanford.edu)
- Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) (law.justia.com)
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 16.003 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 33.001 (statutes.capitol.texas.gov)
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 7, 2026.