Strict liability, confirmed by the state's highest court
Under KRS 258.235(4), a dog owner "shall be responsible for that damage" — mandatory language the Kentucky Supreme Court confirmed in Maupin v. Tankersley (2018) establishes strict liability as a matter of law, regardless of the dog's prior history. The statute covers both bites and other injuries a dog might cause, not just the bite itself.
Strict liability doesn't eliminate comparative fault, though. Maupin also confirmed that Kentucky's pure comparative fault statute still requires a jury to weigh the victim's own conduct — strict liability establishes the claim, but your own fault can still reduce the damages awarded, without ever barring recovery entirely under Kentucky's pure comparative system.
A genuinely distinctive extension: in Benningfield v. Zinsmeister (2012), the Kentucky Supreme Court held a landlord who permits a tenant to keep a dog on leased premises can themselves be considered an "owner" under KRS 258.235 — reaching landlords through the strict liability statute directly, not just through a separate negligence theory.