Personal Injury · Dog Bite Liability
Dog Bite Laws in West Virginia
Whether West Virginia 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 West Virginia
A hybrid: the two prongs below apply differently.
When the owner permitted the dog to run at large (off the premises or not confined), §19-20-13 makes the owner liable for the damage the dog inflicts. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals read this as strict liability in Marcum v. Ballomy: you need not prove the owner was negligent or knew the dog was dangerous.
The statute’s "run at large" trigger is not met, so you fall back on common-law scienter: you must prove the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous (a prior bite or other vicious conduct), or was otherwise negligent.
This is a hybrid that splits by the dog’s legal status.
Landlords & defenses
Who else can be liable, and what defeats a claim.
The "at large" trigger is the whole case. Courts have suggested an owner also has a defense where a third party released a properly confined dog without the owner’s knowledge or consent, since the owner did not "permit" it to run at large.
The full picture, with the source
Every field, and any recent development.
| Liability model | Mixed / hybrid |
| Basis | Statute + common law — W. Va. Code §19-20-13 (running at large) + scienter on the owner’s premises |
| What it covers | Either (1) the owner permitted the dog to run at large and it inflicted the injury while loose, which triggers strict liability under §19-20-13, or (2) the dog was on the owner’s premises, in which case you must prove scienter (knowledge of a dangerous propensity) or ordinary negligence. |
| Landlord | Generally no. A landlord is not the owner or keeper who "permits" the dog to run at large, so §19-20-13 does not reach them. A landlord is reached only through common-law negligence, which requires knowledge the dog was dangerous plus the ability to remove it. |
| Main defenses | Dog was confined / not at large · No knowledge of dangerous propensity (on-premises) · Provocation · Trespassing |
What West Virginia dog-bite victims get wrong
West Virginia is a "mixed" state, but it splits differently from New York. New York splits by the type of damage; West Virginia splits by where the dog was. The key is W. Va. Code §19-20-13, which makes an owner who "permits such dog to run at large" liable for the damage the dog inflicts while loose. The state Supreme Court of Appeals read that as strict liability in Marcum v. Ballomy, so a victim hurt by a roaming dog need not prove the owner knew anything. Take the dog off the road and back onto the owner’s own property, though, and the "run at large" trigger disappears. On the owner’s premises the case reverts to old-fashioned common law: you must prove the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous, or was negligent. The single question that decides which rule applies is whether the dog was running at large when it caused the harm.
Common questions
Is West Virginia a strict-liability state for dog bites?
Only when the dog was running at large. W. Va. Code §19-20-13 imposes strict liability on an owner who lets a dog roam, but if the dog was on the owner’s own property you must fall back on common-law scienter. That makes West Virginia a mixed state.
What does "running at large" mean for a West Virginia dog-bite case?
It generally means the owner permitted the dog off the premises or otherwise not confined. If the dog inflicted the injury while at large, §19-20-13 makes the owner liable without proof of fault or knowledge.
What if the dog bit me on the owner’s own property in West Virginia?
Then §19-20-13 does not apply, because the dog was not running at large. You must prove common-law scienter: that the owner knew or should have known the dog was dangerous, or was otherwise negligent.
Is a landlord liable for a tenant’s dog bite in West Virginia?
Generally no. Section 19-20-13 reaches the owner or keeper who permitted the dog to run at large, not a landlord. A landlord is reached only through common-law negligence, which needs knowledge the dog was dangerous plus the ability to remove it.
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.