Personal Injury · Dog Bite Liability
Dog Bite Laws in Maryland
Whether Maryland holds a dog owner automatically liable, follows the one-bite rule, or takes a mixed approach, plus landlord liability and the main defenses.
How liability works in Maryland
A hybrid: the two prongs below apply differently.
A dog that is free, unrestrained, or not under control (even on the owner’s own property) triggers strict liability for the injury under subsection (c), unless you were trespassing, committing a crime, or provoking the dog.
Subsection (a) gives you a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. The owner can rebut it, which is why this half is near-strict rather than fully strict.
This is a hybrid that splits by the dog’s legal status.
Landlords & defenses
Who else can be liable, and what defeats a claim.
In a jury trial the judge may not rule that the presumption has been rebutted as a matter of law before the jury returns its verdict, so the knowledge question usually reaches the jury.
The full picture, with the source
Every field, and any recent development.
| Liability model | Mixed / hybrid |
| Basis | Statute — Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §3-1901 (2014 SB 247) |
| What it covers | For the strict path, show the dog was at large (free, unrestrained, or not under control) and that you were not trespassing, committing a crime, or provoking it. Otherwise, proof that the dog caused the injury raises the presumption of the owner’s knowledge, and the owner then carries the burden to rebut it. |
| Landlord | Generally no. Section 3-1901(b) sends claims against non-owners, including landlords, to the common law as it stood on April 1, 2012, and the statutory presumption does not apply to them. A landlord is reached only on the older knowledge-and-control standard. |
| Main defenses | Trespassing · Committing a crime · Provoking the dog · Rebutting the presumption of knowledge |
2014 Md. Laws ch. 48 (SB 247) (decided 2014-04-08): Senate Bill 247 created §3-1901, replacing the breed-specific rule from Tracey v. Solesky with a breed-neutral framework. It set the rebuttable presumption of owner knowledge and the strict-liability rule for a dog at large, applying the same standard to every dog regardless of breed.
What Maryland dog-bite victims get wrong
Maryland is mixed, and it splits by the dog’s status rather than by the type of damage. A 2014 statute, §3-1901, reset the state after the courts had briefly made pit bull owners strictly liable by breed. The statute is breed-neutral and has two moving parts. If the dog was running at large, meaning free, unrestrained, or not under control, even on the owner’s own land, the owner is strictly liable under subsection (c), subject only to trespass, crime, and provocation defenses. For any other injury, subsection (a) hands the victim a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous. Because the owner can rebut that presumption, this half is near-strict rather than fully strict, which is what keeps Maryland out of the pure strict-liability column. Landlords sit outside all of this: subsection (b) routes claims against non-owners back to the older common law.
Common questions
Is Maryland a strict-liability or one-bite state for dog bites?
It is mixed. A dog running at large brings strict liability under §3-1901(c). For other injuries, the victim gets a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew the dog was dangerous, and the owner can try to rebut it, so it is near-strict rather than fully strict.
What is Maryland’s rebuttable presumption in a dog-bite case?
Under §3-1901(a), proving the dog caused the injury creates a presumption that the owner knew or should have known the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. The owner then bears the burden of rebutting it.
What does "running at large" mean under Maryland dog law?
Maryland courts read it as free, unrestrained, or not under control, and it can apply even on the owner’s own property. A dog at large triggers strict liability unless the victim was trespassing, committing a crime, or provoking the dog.
Can I sue a landlord for a tenant’s dog bite in Maryland?
Generally only under the older common law. Section 3-1901(b) sends claims against non-owners, including landlords, to the law as it stood on April 1, 2012, and the statutory presumption does not apply to them.
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.