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

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Idaho's one-bite rule is built around the dog's owner — which leaves landlords outside its reach unless a separate theory applies.

The one-bite rule doesn't reach the landlord

Idaho's common-law one-bite rule centers on the dog's owner and what they knew, or should have known, about the dog's dangerous propensities. A landlord who doesn't own the dog generally falls outside this framework entirely, even if the bite happened on rental property the landlord owns — ownership of the property isn't the same as ownership of the dog.

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.

The leash-law shortcut doesn't carry over

The negligence per se shortcut available against a dog's owner — through a leash law violation or Idaho Code §25-2805's dangerous dog framework — is specific to the owner. A separate claim against a landlord who isn't the dog's owner is evaluated under ordinary negligence principles instead, without that statutory shortcut available.

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 Idaho attorney.