What was the pit bull rule, and what happened to it?

In Tracey v. Solesky (2012), Maryland's highest court imposed strict liability on pit bull owners and their landlords for incidents between April 27, 2012 and April 7, 2014. The General Assembly replaced that rule effective April 8, 2014 with the breed-neutral statute.

Can the owner defeat the presumption?

The owner can present evidence that they neither knew nor should have known of any dangerous propensity. But in a jury trial the judge may not rule as a matter of law that the presumption has been rebutted before the jury returns a verdict, so it is the jury's call.

Does breed matter under the current statute?

No. The statute applies without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog. For people other than the owner, the retained common law also applies without regard to breed.

Is there a rule that applies regardless of what the owner knew?

Yes. Under §3-1901(c), the owner is liable for any injury, death or loss caused by the dog while it is running at large, subject to exceptions for trespassers, people committing crimes, and those who tease, torment, abuse or provoke the dog.

A Rebuttable Presumption, Not the One-Bite Rule

Q: Is Maryland a strict liability or one-bite state?

Neither exactly. For owners, Courts and Judicial Proceedings §3-1901(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities once evidence shows the dog caused the injury. That removes the old requirement of proving a prior bite, but the owner can try to rebut it.

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Maryland used to be a one-bite state. For incidents on or after April 8, 2014, owners are presumed to know their dog is dangerous.

The presumption

Under Courts and Judicial Proceedings §3-1901(a), evidence that a dog caused a person's injury or death creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. A victim no longer has to prove a prior bite. The owner may try to rebut the presumption, but in a jury trial the judge cannot rule that it has been rebutted before the jury returns its verdict.

The pit bull detour

From April 27, 2012 to April 7, 2014, incidents involving pit bulls were governed by Tracey v. Solesky, which imposed strict tort liability on pit bull owners and their landlords. The legislature replaced that breed-specific rule with the current statute, which applies to every breed alike.

Liability regardless of knowledge: dogs at large

Section 3-1901(c) separately makes an owner liable for any injury, death or loss caused by a dog running at large, with exceptions for trespassers, people committing crimes, and people who tease, torment, abuse or provoke the dog. Under that provision, what the owner knew is beside the point.

Other routes remain open

Subsection (d) preserves any other common law or statutory cause of action. A victim can also sue in negligence — and a violation of an animal control law, such as a leash ordinance, is evidence of negligence in Maryland.

Injured in Maryland?

A local personal injury attorney can review your claim — many offer a free consultation.

Talk to a Maryland attorney

Official sources

Maryland General Assembly fiscal note (2013) — contributory negligence

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 Maryland attorney.