Georgia’s approach to dog bite liability is neither strict liability nor a pure one-bite rule. It is a two-path framework that gives injured plaintiffs more than one route to recovery while still requiring proof of specific elements on each path. O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7 governs the analysis. The Georgia Tort Reform Act — SB 68, signed April 21, 2025 — did not amend § 51-2-7 directly, but its comparative fault, bifurcation, and damages anchoring changes affect how dog bite cases are litigated.
The Statute
Section 51-2-7 provides that a person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury may be liable in damages. Four elements: (1) the animal was vicious or dangerous; (2) the owner or keeper knew of that propensity — the scienter requirement; (3) the owner carelessly managed the animal or allowed it to go at liberty; and (4) the injured person did not provoke the attack.
The statute adds a critical second sentence: in proving vicious propensity, it is sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the animal was not at heel or on a leash at the time of the occurrence.
Path One: Scienter
The first path requires proof that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of them. A prior bite is the clearest evidence of scienter but not the only one. Prior lunges, growling, snapping, chasing, or killing another animal can establish that the owner was on notice. The owner’s own statements are highly relevant. Breed alone does not establish vicious propensity; Georgia courts have not adopted breed-specific liability.
The one-bite formulation — that a dog gets a “free bite” — is an oversimplification. The scienter requirement demands evidence that the owner was aware of aggressive behavior before the incident, not necessarily a prior completed bite.
Path Two: Ordinance Violation
The second path bypasses scienter entirely. If a local leash law required the dog to be restrained and the dog was not restrained at the time of the attack, that is sufficient — by the terms of the statute — to establish vicious propensity. The plaintiff still must prove careless management and lack of provocation, but the need to show prior aggressive behavior disappears when a leash law violation is in play.
This makes the ordinance path particularly powerful for attacks by dogs with no documented history of aggression. Virtually every Georgia county and municipality has a leash ordinance, and a dog running loose in violation at the moment of attack satisfies the propensity element as a matter of statutory construction.
Who Is Liable
The statute covers both owners and keepers — anyone who has custody or control of the animal regardless of ownership. A pet sitter, a dog walker, or a tenant whose landlord knew of the dog’s dangerous propensity can all face liability. Landlords who knew of a tenant’s dangerous dog and failed to take corrective action may also face exposure, though the landlord liability question turns heavily on specific facts.
Provocation and Comparative Fault
The provocation defense is statutory. An injured person who provoked the injury by his own act cannot recover under § 51-2-7. Provocation includes teasing, tormenting, striking, or otherwise agitating the dog in a way that caused its reaction. Accidental contact — a child stumbling into a dog, for example — generally does not constitute provocation.
SB 68 sharpens the comparative fault analysis in dog bite cases. Under the modified comparative fault framework of O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, a plaintiff who is 50 percent or more at fault for the attack cannot recover. SB 68 introduced mandatory trial bifurcation — available at any party’s election for cases over $150,000 — separating the liability and damages phases. In a dog bite case, bifurcation means the jury determines liability before hearing damages evidence. SB 68’s changes to non-party fault apportionment also affect cases where the attack occurred on third-party property or involved multiple actors.
Statute of Limitations
The two-year personal injury statute of limitations under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 applies, running from the date of the attack. No special notice provision applies to private dog bite claims; ante litem requirements are a separate matter for government-entity defendants.
Practical Notes
Scene evidence deteriorates quickly. The dog’s prior history, complaints to animal control, the owner’s knowledge, and the condition of any containment at the time of attack all need to be documented promptly. The applicable leash ordinance should be confirmed in effect on the date of the attack. SB 68’s anchoring prohibition limits how plaintiffs may argue the value of non-economic damages — a change that affects settlement framing and closing argument in any dog bite trial.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Laws change frequently and may vary by county or city; this blog reflects a general understanding of Georgia law as of the date of publication.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!