Strict Liability vs. the One-Bite Rule in Connecticut

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Connecticut's statute doesn't just reject the one-bite rule — it reaches further than most strict liability statutes do, covering more people and more types of injury.

Owners and keepers, both strictly liable

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. §22-357, both the dog's owner and its keeper — anyone with care and custody of the animal, even without legal ownership — are strictly liable. No proof of prior knowledge or a prior bite is required. This is broader than many states' statutes, which apply only to the legal owner.

Beyond bites

Most state dog-bite statutes cover bites specifically. Connecticut's doesn't stop there: §22-357 covers bites, other bodily injuries, and property damage caused by a dog. A dog that knocks someone down or causes injury some other way, without ever biting, can still trigger strict liability in Connecticut — a meaningful difference from bite-only statutes elsewhere.

The one-bite rule survives for non-owner third parties

A victim may still have a case against someone who isn't the owner or keeper — for instance, a third party who knew the dog was vicious — under Connecticut's common-law one-bite rule. This operates alongside the statute rather than instead of it, covering situations the owner/keeper framework doesn't directly reach.

Narrow exceptions, construed in favor of victims

Connecticut courts read the statute's trespassing and provocation exceptions narrowly. In Doerfler v. Redding, an 11-year-old who petted a dog despite a warning was found not to have provoked it — minor disobedience or imprudence isn't enough to defeat the strict liability the statute creates.

This is general information, not legal advice. Which theory applies, and how strong your evidence is under it, depends on the specific facts. Confirm your situation with a licensed Connecticut attorney.