No Listed Exceptions, Just Comparative Fault

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Where some states' dog bite statutes carve out explicit exceptions for trespassing or provocation, Kentucky's statute doesn't carve out anything at all — the victim's conduct enters the picture only through comparative fault.

A statute with no built-in exceptions

Kentucky's dog-attack statute doesn't list any exceptions to an owner's strict liability — no explicit trespassing or provocation carve-out written into the text itself, the way some other states' statutes include.

Comparative fault does that work instead

Instead, a court weighs the victim's provocation, trespassing, or other conduct as a percentage of fault under KRS 411.182, reducing the damages awarded rather than defeating the claim outright. Because Kentucky follows pure comparative fault, even heavy fault assigned to the victim doesn't eliminate the claim the way it might in a modified comparative fault state with a cutoff.

A real age-based exception

One genuine exception does exist: Kentucky law holds that a child under seven years of age cannot be found contributorily or comparatively negligent. A young child's own conduct simply can't be used to reduce the recovery, unlike an adult's or an older child's.

Why this structure matters practically

Because fault reduces rather than eliminates, a Kentucky dog bite victim's claim is rarely wiped out entirely by their own conduct — at most, the recovery shrinks in proportion to their fault, leaving some compensation available even in cases where an owner might otherwise expect a complete defense.

Official sources

• Kentucky Revised Statutes — fault allocation (Kentucky Legislature)

This is general information, not legal advice. How much a specific fact reduces a recovery depends heavily on the circumstances. Confirm how these rules affect your case with a licensed Kentucky attorney.