Does Colorado's strict liability dog bite statute apply to landlords?

No. C.R.S. §13-21-124 places strict liability on the dog's owner specifically - a landlord who isn't the dog's owner falls outside the statute's strict liability framework, whether or not the bite meets the serious-bodily-injury threshold.

Can a landlord still be liable under a different legal theory?

Yes - a landlord could potentially face liability under ordinary negligence principles if they knew the tenant's dog was dangerous and had the ability to address it, such as enforcing a lease term or requiring the dog's removal, but failed to act.

What would a victim need to prove against a Colorado landlord?

Generally, actual knowledge that the specific dog had dangerous propensities, combined with some degree of control over the premises that would have allowed the landlord to address the risk - the same knowledge-based standard that applies to noneconomic damages against the dog's actual owner.

Is a landlord's pet policy relevant to a liability claim?

A landlord's policy allowing pets generally isn't enough on its own to establish liability. Knowing that tenants may have dogs is different from knowing a particular dog is dangerous, which is the key fact a negligence claim against a landlord needs to establish.

Does Colorado's 50% fault rule apply to a landlord liability claim?

Yes. If a victim's own conduct contributed to the incident, Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule applies to a landlord liability claim the same way it applies to any other personal injury claim - reaching 50% fault bars recovery entirely.

Is the Landlord Liable for a Tenant's Dog Bite in Colorado?

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Colorado's dog bite statute doesn't reach landlords — a real limitation worth understanding if a tenant's dog bites someone on rental property.

The strict liability statute is owner-specific

C.R.S. §13-21-124 places strict liability specifically on the dog's owner, not on other possessors of the property. A landlord who doesn't own the dog falls outside the statute's strict liability framework entirely, regardless of whether the bite meets the statute's "serious bodily injury" threshold.

Negligence remains a real path

This doesn't mean a landlord is automatically off the hook. A victim could still pursue an ordinary negligence claim against a landlord who knew the tenant's dog was dangerous and had the practical ability to address it — for example, by enforcing a lease provision or requiring the dog's removal — but failed to act.

Knowing a dog exists isn't the same as knowing it's dangerous

A landlord's pet-friendly policy, by itself, generally isn't enough to establish liability. The key fact a negligence claim needs is that the landlord knew this specific dog had dangerous propensities — not merely that tenants were permitted to have dogs under the lease.

Comparative fault still applies

If a victim's own conduct contributed to the incident in any way, Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule applies to a landlord liability claim exactly as it would to a claim against the dog's owner — reaching 50% fault bars recovery entirely.

Injured in Colorado?

A local personal injury attorney can review your claim — many offer a free consultation.

Talk to a Colorado attorney

Official sources

This is general information, not legal advice. Landlord liability for a tenant's dog turns heavily on the specific facts and what the landlord actually knew. Confirm how this applies to your situation with a licensed Colorado attorney.