Arkansas's two-track common-law system
Arkansas has no general civil dog bite statute. Instead, the Arkansas Supreme Court has drawn a clear line in its case law: when a dog is known to be vicious, the owner's liability is what the court itself calls "strict liability" — see Strange v. Stovall, 546 S.W.2d 421 (Ark. 1977), where the court rejected a jury instruction suggesting mere ordinary care could excuse a known-vicious dog's owner. When the dog is not known to be vicious, negligence is the correct legal theory instead, requiring proof the owner failed to exercise reasonable care.
A leash-law or animal-control violation can serve as evidence of negligence, but Arkansas courts do not apply negligence per se — meaning the violation alone doesn't automatically establish liability the way it does in some other states.