Can you recover for a dog bite if there is no evidence that the dog has bitten someone previously?

The trial court’s suggestion that a plaintiff may recover against a dog’s owner for injuries arising from a dog bite without proving the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities is contrary to Georgia law.

In a typical dog bite case, regardless of whether the cause of action is based on the premises liability statute (OCGA § 51-3-1) or the dangerous animal liability statute (OCGA § 51-2-7), a plaintiff must produce evidence of the vicious propensity of the dog in order to show that the owner of the premises had superior knowledge of the danger.

Custer v. Coward, 293 Ga. App. 316, 319 (2), 667 S.E.2d 135 (2008) (citation omitted).

Our law does not presume that dogs are vicious or dangerous. To the contrary, it presumes that dogs, regardless of breed, are of a harmless species, and for that reason, our courts require actual proof of the dangerous nature of a particular dog and of his owner’s knowledge of the particular dog’s deviation from presumptive harmlessness.

Steagald v. Eason, 300 Ga. 717, 719, 797 S.E.2d 838 (2017) (citations and punctuation omitted).

In Tyner v. Matta-Troncoso, 305 Ga. 480, 480, 826 S.E.2d 100 (2019), the plaintiffs brought a negligence claim against a landlord, alleging he was liable under OCGA § 44-7-14 for injuries suffered in an attack by dogs owned by the landlord’s tenants because he had failed to repair a broken gate latch. Citing Johnston v. Warendh, 252 Ga. App. 674, 678 (3), 556 S.E.2d 867 (2001), disapproved of on other grounds by S&S Towing & Recovery v. Charnota, 309 Ga. 117, 122 (2), n.6, 844 S.E.2d 730 (2020), where this Court noted the lack of precedent “which provides for liability for dog bites other than OCGA § 51-2-7 and the premises liability statute, OCGA § 51-3-1[,]” the Supreme Court of Georgia made no determination about whether OCGA § 44-7-14 can be used to hold out-of-possession landlords liable for injuries resulting from dog bites. Tyner, 305 Ga. at 484 (3), 826 S.E.2d 100. The Court explained that, assuming OCGA § 44-7-14 can be used for this purpose, the plaintiff must “present some evidence showing that the landlord had knowledge of the dogs’ tendencies or propensities to do harm in order to demonstrate reasonable foreseeability.” Id. at 484 (3), 487 (3), 826 S.E.2d 100. Because the record presented no evidence that the landlord had knowledge that the dogs had been aggressive previously, the Court concluded that there was no evidence to create a jury issue as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were reasonably foreseeable, and that the landlord was entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 488-489 (3), 826 S.E.2d 100. **472 Thus, even assuming that the violation of a vaccination statute or ordinance can be used to hold dog owners liable for injuries resulting from dog bites, the Bealings were required to present evidence that the Dilfields had knowledge of their dog’s propensity to do harm in order to recover for their son’s injury.