Personal Injury · Dog Bite Liability
Dog Bite Laws in Oregon
Whether Oregon 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 Oregon
A hybrid: the two prongs below apply differently.
Recoverable on a strict basis under ORS 31.360: you need not prove the owner could foresee the injury, and the owner cannot defend by saying the dog’s behavior was unforeseeable. This covers any injury the dog causes, not only a bite.
You must prove the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous (common-law scienter, the "one-bite" rule), or that the owner was negligent, including negligence per se from breaking a leash or animal-control law.
This is a hybrid that splits by the type of damage you claim.
Landlords & defenses
Who else can be liable, and what defeats a claim.
Provocation and any other ordinary defense remain available even on the economic-damage claim; only the foreseeability defense is stripped away by ORS 31.360.
The full picture, with the source
Every field, and any recent development.
| Liability model | Mixed / hybrid |
| Basis | Statute + common law — ORS 31.360 (economic) + common-law scienter (non-economic) |
| What it covers | For strict economic-damage recovery under ORS 31.360, you show the dog caused the injury; foreseeability is off the table. For non-economic damages you must prove scienter (the owner knew of the dog’s dangerous propensity), negligence, or negligence per se. |
| Landlord | Generally no. A landlord is not the "owner" for the statute and is reached only through common-law negligence, which needs actual knowledge that the dog was dangerous plus the ability to remove it. |
| Main defenses | Provocation · No scienter / no knowledge (for pain & suffering) · No negligence · Comparative fault |
What Oregon dog-bite victims get wrong
Oregon does not fit the simple strict-versus-one-bite split, because it divides the case by the kind of money you are asking for. For your economic losses (medical bills, lost wages, and the like) ORS 31.360 makes the owner strictly liable: you do not have to prove the owner could foresee the injury, and the owner cannot argue the dog’s behavior was a surprise. That part also reaches any injury the dog causes, not just a bite. For your non-economic losses (pain and suffering) you drop back into the common law, where you must show the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous, or was otherwise negligent. So the same incident can be strict as to your hospital bill and fault-based as to your pain.
Common questions
Is Oregon a strict-liability state for dog bites?
Only for economic damages. Under ORS 31.360 your medical bills and lost wages are recoverable without proving the owner could foresee the injury, but pain and suffering require proving the owner knew the dog was dangerous or was negligent. That makes Oregon a mixed state.
What is the difference between economic and non-economic damages in an Oregon dog case?
Economic damages are measurable losses like medical bills and lost wages, and they are strict under ORS 31.360. Non-economic damages are things like pain and suffering, and they require proving the owner’s knowledge or negligence.
Do I have to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous in Oregon?
Not for your economic losses. For non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, yes: you must show scienter (the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous) or negligence, including negligence per se from a leash-law violation.
Does Oregon’s dog law cover injuries other than bites?
For economic damages, yes. ORS 31.360 speaks to any "injury caused by a dog," so being knocked down, scratched, or tripped can qualify, not only an actual bite.
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.