What effect does the violation of an ordinance requiring dog be restrained have on the dog owner’s liability for a dog bite?
Local ordinances can mandate that “All dogs and cats shall be kept under restraint. It is an animal owner’s responsibility to insure that animals on and off their real property be restrained.” The unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty proscribed by a statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the statute or ordinance is intended to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included and to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation. Clearly, the class of persons to be protected and the risk of harm to be prevented include persons bitten by dogs that are not restrained which cause injuries. Usually, these ordinances requires only that the owners prevent their dogs and cats from escaping beyond their property line with these ordinances requiring that all dogs and cats be restrained on their owners’ property by means of a mandatory fence or leash. These ordinances do not limit a dog owner’s duty of reasonable care, but defines it by setting forth the manner in which a dog owner is to exercise that duty. The duty to prevent injury which can reasonably be anticipated extends beyond simply insuring that a dog stays within its owner’s property line.
In summary, maintaining a dog in Indiana imposes on a dog owner the duty of reasonable care, even when the owner is unaware of the dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities. Without knowledge of the dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities, the owner may become liable for damages the dog causes where the owner is otherwise negligent in the manner of his “keeping and control” of the dog. Above all, an owner is bound to know a dog’s natural propensities and use reasonable care to prevent injuries which might reasonably be expected from those propensities. The foregoing duties are imposed on the owner of a dog regardless of a dog bite victim’s age or status.