Dog At Large, Trespassers & Contributory Negligence

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Maryland writes its exceptions into the statute — and then layers its famously strict fault rule on top.

Three statutory exceptions

The owner's liability for a dog running at large under §3-1901(c) does not extend to an injured person who was (1) committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the owner's property, (2) committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or (3) teasing, tormenting, abusing or provoking the dog. An attempt is treated the same as the completed act.

Contributory negligence still applies

Maryland is one of five jurisdictions that retain contributory negligence. A victim whose own negligence contributed to the bite in any degree generally cannot recover — the statute doesn't override that, and subsection (d) expressly leaves other common law defenses intact.

Children and the fault bar

A child under five cannot be contributorily negligent under Maryland case law. Older children are measured against the care of a reasonable child of like age, intelligence and experience, not an adult.

Other defenses

Maryland courts have also held that a dog owner is not liable when the dog bites a trespasser, whether the trespass is intentional or inadvertent, and that assumption of the risk can bar a claim — as when a worker read a guard dog warning sign and entered anyway.

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