§PlainStatute

Personal Injury · Dog Bite Liability

Dog Bite Laws in Arizona

Whether Arizona holds a dog owner automatically liable, follows the one-bite rule, or takes a mixed approach — plus landlord liability and the main defenses.

Reviewed by PlainStatute EditorialLast reviewed July 2026Verified against §11-1025
Dog-bite liability · Arizona
Strict liability
The owner is strictly liable for a bite regardless of the dog’s prior viciousness or the owner’s knowledge — there is no "one free bite."
BasisStatute
CoversAny injury
Landlord liable?Rarely
Statute§11-1025

How liability works in Arizona

What the rule is, and what you must show.

What the victim must show
You were bitten while in a public place or lawfully on private property, including the owner’s. Note a short one-year statute of limitations for the strict-liability claim.

Landlords & defenses

Who else can be liable, and what defeats a claim.

Landlord liability
Generally no under §11-1025, which targets "owners." A landlord requires common-law negligence — knowledge of the danger plus control.
Main defenses
Provocation (§11-1027)Trespassing / not lawfully presentMilitary & police dogs

Provocation is essentially the only defense to the §11-1025 strict-liability claim; the strict claim also carries a one-year statute of limitations.

The full picture, with the source

Every field, and any recent development.

Liability modelStrict liability
BasisStatuteStatute — A.R.S. §11-1025 (+ §11-1027 provocation)
What it coversYou were bitten while in a public place or lawfully on private property, including the owner’s. Note a short one-year statute of limitations for the strict-liability claim.
LandlordGenerally no under §11-1025, which targets "owners." A landlord requires common-law negligence — knowledge of the danger plus control.
Main defensesProvocation (§11-1027) · Trespassing / not lawfully present · Military & police dogs

What Arizona dog-bite victims get wrong

Arizona is firmly strict-liability: under A.R.S. §11-1025 an owner is liable for a bite no matter how gentle the dog had seemed, and the victim only has to show the bite happened while they were lawfully present. Provocation is close to the only defense the statute leaves open (defined at §11-1027). The trap in Arizona is not the standard but the clock: the strict-liability claim carries a short one-year statute of limitations, so waiting can forfeit the easiest path to recovery even where the bite is undisputed. Landlords sit outside §11-1025 and can be reached only through common-law negligence.

Common questions

Is Arizona a strict-liability state for dog bites?

Yes. Under A.R.S. §11-1025 the owner is strictly liable for a bite regardless of the dog’s prior viciousness or the owner’s knowledge.

How long do I have to file a dog-bite claim in Arizona?

The strict-liability claim under §11-1025 has a short one-year statute of limitations — much shorter than the general personal-injury period, so act promptly.

What defenses can an Arizona dog owner raise?

Provocation (defined in §11-1027) is essentially the main defense, along with the victim not being lawfully present. Military and police dogs are excepted.

Is a landlord liable for a tenant’s dog bite in Arizona?

Generally not under §11-1025, which targets owners. A landlord can be liable only through common-law negligence with knowledge of the danger and control.

Primary source
A.R.S. §11-1025
Arizona Revised Statutes (§11-1025) · azleg.gov
PlainStatute Editorial
Every figure on this page is checked line-by-line against the current statute. Editorial standards →

Not legal advicePlainStatute provides plain-language summaries of public law for general information only. This is not legal advice. Statutes change; always confirm current requirements with the official source linked above before acting.

Dog-bite liability · other states