Dog Bite Exceptions and the Under-7 Presumption

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

Massachusetts leaves an owner very little room to escape. The statute names two situations, and for small children it reverses the burden of proof.

Exception one: trespass or another tort

Under G.L. c. 140 §155, the owner or keeper isn't liable for damage to a person who, when it happened, was committing a trespass or other tort. The wording reaches civil wrongs beyond trespass, but the victim must have been committing it at that moment.

Exception two: teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog

The second exception covers a victim who was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog at the time. Those are the only defenses the statute lists; the Superior Court's model jury instructions treat the owner's negligence or knowledge as irrelevant.

Children under seven

If the injured person is under seven, the statute presumes the child was neither committing a trespass or other tort nor teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog, and places the burden of proving otherwise on the defendant. In practice, summaries of the law note that when a dog injures a child that young the owner or keeper will usually have no defense.

What doesn't count

A warning sign or a leash is not a listed exception, because liability under the statute doesn't depend on the owner's precautions. Whether ordinary comparative negligence can reduce a strict-liability dog claim is a separate question to put to an attorney.

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