Trespassing, Provocation & Owner Knowledge

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Connecticut's strict liability statute has only two exceptions — and the state's courts have consistently read both narrowly, keeping the statute's protection broad for victims.

Just two exceptions, narrowly applied

Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-357 excludes recovery only when the victim was trespassing (or committing another tort) or provoking the dog — teasing, tormenting, or abusing it. In Doerfler v. Redding, Connecticut's Appellate Court held that an 11-year-old boy's act of petting a dog, even after being warned to stay away, didn't qualify as provocation: petting isn't conduct that naturally and foreseeably irritates a dog to the point of attack, and the owner's warning didn't change that.

Entering property isn't automatically trespassing

Connecticut courts have clarified that merely entering someone's property doesn't by itself constitute trespass under the statute. The analysis turns on the specific circumstances — whether the person had permission, implied or express, to be there.

A real protection for young children

Connecticut law presumes a child under age 7 did not trespass or provoke the dog, unless the defendant proves otherwise. This shifts the burden of proof onto the dog owner or keeper when a young child is involved, rather than requiring the family to affirmatively disprove trespassing or provocation.

Negligence per se as an additional path

Separate from the strict liability statute itself, violating an animal control law — a leash requirement, a prohibition on dogs running at large — can establish liability under the doctrine of negligence per se. This gives a victim another route to liability beyond §22-357's framework.

This is general information, not legal advice. Whether an exception applies depends heavily on the specific facts. Confirm how these defenses might affect your case with a licensed Connecticut attorney.