Indiana Dog-Bite Laws

Defenses to Dog-Bite Lawsuits

Even an owner who acknowledges that their dog bit or injured someone could have several defenses under Indiana law.

Not Strict Liability

If a mail carrier or other government employee sues under strict liability, the owner could argue that the employee doesn't meet the requirements to bring a case using that law. If the owner wins that argument, then the employee would have to prove that the owner's negligence led to the incident in question.

Strict liability doesn't apply if the dog owner can show that the employee:

• suffered an injury other than a bite
• wasn't on the job at the time of the incident, or
• wasn't acting "peaceably," or otherwise did something to provoke the dog.

(Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 (2024).)

If a judge rejects a strict liability claim, that doesn't necessarily mean that the dog owner wins—the plaintiff could still succeed with a negligence claim.

Contributory Fault: The Victim Caused Their Own Injuries

Every state has its own approach for deciding what to do if the owner and the victim share some responsibility for an injury inflicted by a dog. In Indiana, an owner who is sued for negligence can argue that their liability is reduced or eliminated by the state's "contributory fault" rules. A judge or jury (whichever one is deciding the case) must then look at the facts and assign the plaintiff and the defendant a percentage of the fault for the defendant's injuries.

The plaintiff can still recover damages from the defendant if they're up to 50% responsible. But the amount of their compensatory damages (to cover things like medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering) will be reduced in proportion to their own level of fault.

Plaintiffs who are more than 50% responsible, though, won't receive any money at all.

(Ind. Code § 34-51-2-5 and § 34-51-2-5 (2024).)

So, what can make plaintiffs fully or partially responsible for their own injuries in a dog attack?

Provocation. The most common way a victim can be partly or totally responsible is by doing something that a reasonable person should have known would provoke the dog, like teasing it, abusing it, or trying to attack or threaten its owner.

But provoking a dog doesn't automatically make someone fully responsible for everything that happens next. For example, a bite victim might be fully responsible for a minor bite if they startled a dog. Yet if the dog responded to that kind of innocent mistake by attacking and seriously injuring the victim, the owner would probably still bear most of the responsibility.

Trespassing. Unlike many states, Indiana doesn't make a trespasser fully responsible for their own injuries if they're attacked by the property owner's dog. If someone is on a dog owner's property without permission, that could allow the owner to argue that the trespasser shares some of the blame for their own injuries. But a dog owner in Indiana owes the same duty of reasonable care to a trespasser as they do to anyone else.

(Martin v. Hayduk, 91 N.E.3d 601 (Ind. App. 2017).)