When someone else's dog bites you in Nevada, the dog's owner is often the primary responsible party, but liability can also extend to a landlord, a dog sitter or walker, or another person whose careless actions allowed the bite to happen. Responsibility depends on who had control of the dog, what they knew, and what they did or failed to do.
Much of this area of Nevada law has been shaped by appellate decisions rather than a single statute. Cogburn Davidson partner Hunter Davidson frequently appears before the Nevada Supreme Court, and those appearances have resulted in several published decisions. This article explains how liability may apply to each party in a Nevada dog bite case, and how common defenses can affect the outcome.
Nevada Dog Bite Liability Is Based on Negligence, Not Strict Liability
Nevada dog bite liability is based on negligence rather than strict liability. Unlike some states, Nevada has no statute that automatically makes an owner responsible for every bite, so an injured person generally needs to show that someone failed to use reasonable care. Our overview of Nevada's dog bite laws covers the broader framework in more detail.
Several legal theories may support a Nevada dog bite claim, depending on the facts:
- Negligence, which involves showing that a person owed a duty of reasonable care, failed to meet it, and caused the injury as a result
- Negligence per se, which may apply when someone violates a safety law, such as a local leash ordinance, and that violation leads to the bite
- Knowledge of dangerous tendencies, which may apply when the person responsible for the dog knew about prior aggression and failed to take reasonable precautions
In Harry v. Smith, the Nevada Supreme Court explained that property owners must conform to normal standards of reasonableness under general principles of tort law. That standard, drawn from the court's earlier decision in Wright v. Schum, shapes how Nevada courts evaluate each party's role.
When the Dog Owner Is Liable
A dog owner may be liable when the owner's failure to exercise reasonable care results in a bite. Owner conduct that may support a negligence claim includes the following:
- Letting a dog roam off-leash in a public area.
- Leaving a gate unlatched or failing to repair a damaged fence.
- Bringing a dog with a history of aggression into a crowded area.
- Leaving a dog unsupervised around children or visitors despite signs of aggression.
- Ignoring prior bites, complaints, or warnings from neighbors or animal control.
Local ordinances can play a significant role. The Clark County Code treats an animal as "at large" when it is neither restrained on a leash of six feet or less under adequate control nor confined to its owner's property. When a dog is at large in violation of local law and bites someone, the violation may support a negligence per se argument.
State law also addresses animals with known dangerous tendencies. Under NRS 575.020, a person with care or custody of an animal known to have vicious or dangerous tendencies who allows it to escape or run at large in a way that endangers people commits a misdemeanor. Evidence of that knowledge, including a prior dangerous dog designation, can be important in a civil claim.
When a Landlord or Property Owner Can Be Liable
A landlord or property owner can be liable for a tenant's dog in Nevada only in limited circumstances. Under Wright v. Schum, knowing about a dangerous dog or passively allowing it to remain is generally insufficient. Liability may arise when the owner takes affirmative steps to assume a duty.
In Harry v. Smith, a pit bull with a prior bite history escaped through a poorly maintained fence and bit a child. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the property owner because family members managing the property had allowed the dog there and taken responsibility for its upkeep. By contrast, in the unpublished decision Swain v. Gafford (2021), the Nevada Court of Appeals noted that simply knowing a tenant owns a dog does not require a property owner to investigate the dog's nature.
Facts that may show a landlord assumed a duty include the following:
- Allowing a dog with a known bite history to remain on the property.
- Taking responsibility for maintaining the fences, gates, or enclosures that failed.
- Acting through agents, such as property managers, who were involved with the dog or the premises.
- Controlling the common area where the bite happened.
Businesses are evaluated under similar principles. In PetSmart v. Eighth Judicial District Court (2021), the Nevada Supreme Court held that a pet store was not liable for a bite by a dog adopted at an independent rescue group's event, because the store had not assumed a duty or formed an agency relationship with the group.
When a Dog Sitter, Walker, or Temporary Caretaker Is Liable
A dog sitter, walker, boarding facility, or other temporary caretaker may be liable when a dog bites someone while in that person's care. Nevada's dangerous dog statute, NRS 202.500, and Clark County's animal ordinances both refer to an animal's "owner or keeper," so responsibility can follow whoever is actually controlling the dog.
No published Nevada appellate decision specifically addresses dog sitter liability, so these claims are typically evaluated under general negligence principles. Depending on the facts, a caretaker may face liability for conduct such as the following:
- Walking a dog off-leash in violation of local law.
- Ignoring warnings about the dog's aggression.
- Leaving a dog unsecured around visitors.
Others may share responsibility as well. A dog walking company, daycare, or boarding facility may be liable for an employee's on-the-job conduct, and the owner may be liable for failing to warn the caretaker about known aggressive behavior.
When a Third Party Shares Fault for a Dog Bite
A third party who is neither the owner nor the caretaker may share fault when their own careless actions contribute to a bite. Examples may include the following:
- A neighbor who opens a gate and lets a dog out.
- A guest who unclips a leash.
- Someone who deliberately agitates a dog near other people.
Under NRS 41.141, each defendant is generally responsible only for their own percentage of fault, so identifying every responsible party can affect how much of the total damages may be recoverable.
How Comparative Negligence and Provocation Defenses Affect Liability
Comparative negligence and provocation are two of the most common defenses in Nevada dog bite cases. Under NRS 41.141, an injured person can still recover if their fault was not greater than the defendants' combined fault, but their percentage of fault reduces any recovery.
Nevada's dangerous dog statute, NRS 202.500, defines provocation as tormenting a dog or subjecting it to pain, and a defendant may argue in a civil case that the victim's own actions caused the bite. That is why witness statements and scene evidence can be so important.
The table below summarizes how liability may apply to each potentially responsible party:
| Potentially Liable Party | What Typically Must Be Shown | Key Nevada Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Dog owner | Failure to use reasonable care, a safety law violation, or knowledge of dangerous tendencies | General negligence; NRS 575.020; local leash ordinances |
| Landlord or property owner | Affirmative steps that assumed a duty, not just knowledge of the dog | Wright v. Schum; Harry v. Smith |
| Business where a dog was present | An assumed duty of care or an agency relationship with the party responsible for the dog | PetSmart v. Eighth Judicial District Court |
| Dog sitter, walker, or boarding facility | Failure to use reasonable care while acting as the dog's keeper | General negligence; "owner or keeper" language in NRS 202.500 |
| Third party | Careless conduct that contributed to the bite | General negligence; fault allocation under NRS 41.141 |
Speak With a Dog Bite Attorney About Who May Be Liable
Determining who is responsible for a dog bite often requires investigating leases, property management arrangements, animal control files, and the dog's history. Cogburn Davidson partner Jamie Cogburn is a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, a group for which fewer than 1 percent of U.S. lawyers qualify, and our firm's results include a $4.2 million negligence recovery.
If a dog owned or managed by someone else injured you or your child, a dog bite attorney in Las Vegas can help identify every party that may share responsibility. Call Cogburn Davidson at (702) 805-0652 to schedule a case evaluation at our Las Vegas or Henderson office.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Dog bite law in Nevada is highly nuanced, and every case should be evaluated individually based on its specific facts.
Sources
- Harry v. Smith, 111 Nev. 528, 893 P.2d 372 (1995), Supreme Court of Nevada
- Wright v. Schum, 105 Nev. 611, 781 P.2d 1142 (1989), Supreme Court of Nevada
- PetSmart, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (2021), Supreme Court of Nevada
- Swain v. Gafford, No. 81743-COA (Nev. App. 2021) (unpublished), Court of Appeals of Nevada
- NRS 202.500, Nevada Legislature
- NRS 575.020, Nevada Legislature
- NRS 41.141, Nevada Legislature
- Clark County Code, Title 10, Chapter 10.04, Clark County