Dog Bite Defenses and Pure Comparative Fault

By the FigureMyTax Editorial Team · How we calculate

In Mississippi the owner's best arguments are lack of knowledge and provocation. Your own fault reduces the award rather than ending the claim.

Lack of knowledge

Because Mississippi has no strict liability statute, the first defense is that the owner neither knew nor should have known the dog was dangerous. Evidence of prior bites, growling, lunging or complaints is what defeats it.

Provocation

Firm summaries list provocation as a defense: if the victim provoked the dog, the owner may not be held responsible. What counts as provocation is fact-specific, and Mississippi does not define it in a dog bite statute.

Other commonly raised defenses

Owners in dog bite cases generally also argue that the victim was trespassing or knowingly took on the risk. Whether and how those arguments apply in Mississippi depends on the facts.

Pure comparative fault

Under Miss. Code 11-7-15, your percentage of fault reduces your damages and never bars recovery. If a jury finds you 90% at fault, you still recover 10% of your damages.

Negligence per se

If the owner broke a leash law or at-large ordinance, that violation can establish negligence, which shifts the dispute to how much fault each side bears.

Official sources

• Miss. Code § 11-7-15 — contributory negligence

This is general information, not legal advice, and the state comparisons above are illustrative, not an exhaustive survey. Confirm how Mississippi's rules apply to your specific case with a licensed Mississippi attorney.