DOG BITE LAW IN MINNESOTA also known as DOG BITE LAW IN MN
In Minnesota, a dog bite is based on strict liability just like most states in the United States of America, and getting justification from numerous laws in Minnesota dog bite liability is on dog owners in most of the scenarios when their pets inflict injuries on persons. Few states in the United States of America obey the” one bite rule. “ This rule shields a dog owner from liability except if he was aware that it tended to bite, or cause the bite negligently or intentionally, or violated animal control law. Strict liability is not an old phenomenon in law; in fact, it is as old as the law per se. So in this article, I will in details, be discussing the dog bite laws in Minnesota, we will also look at deadlines for bringing an action in Minnesota as regards dog bite. And if there are legal protections for dog owners and how they can take full advantage of them.
I’ll discuss the details of dog bite law Minnesota in this article, including the deadlines for registering a Minnesota dog bite lawsuit in court and the possible or potential defenses a dog’s owner might raise in response or defense to a dog bite lawsuit.
WHY DOGS SHOULD BE REGULATED
Dogs are generally known as man’s best friends across the world. They have aided and still aiding many families with countless chores; in many households, they are usually seen as pets. Being animals, most pets are unpredictable; this includes dog. Many institutes, a record that dog bite is lethal as a matter of fact, the centers for Disease Control and Prevention affirmed that about 4.5 million persons are attacked by dogs annually. And most of these persons are unaware of their rights, especially in Africa and most legally backward states. But globally, people are getting interested in pursuing their rights as a report released by the insurance information institute the number of dogs –bite claims have increased rapidly. Dog bite should be reported urgently because even minor dog injuries can result in grievous bodily harm, high medical bills, and other harmful repercussions, reporting dog bite is very paramount for the interest of your household and the community at large.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR DOG BITE IN MINNESOTA(MN)
Section 347.22 of the Minnesota statute clearly states that a victim can hold a dog owner liable for injuries emanating from a dog bite. The requirements that must be fulfilled are:
- The person was calm and or “acting peaceably,” and
- The person did not in any way provoke the dog
- The person was lawfully in the place where he or she was bitten — such as on public property or was on his legally allocated or private property
Just like we have stated from the onset, under Minnesota law, a dog bite is based on strict liability. The law also extends to any injuries or damage orchestrated when a dog “attacks or injures” another person. What can be fashioned into this realm includes both dog bite injuries and injuries resulting from other dog-related behaviors. In Minnesota, the law is very strict that in a situation where a dog knocks someone wears down or where a dog knocks the person down while pursuing someone, the person here can recover under Minnesota dog bite law. It is totally immaterial to prove that the dog’s actions were necessitated by the owner’s negligence.
STATUTORY LIMITATIONS FOR DOG BITE CLAIM IN MINNESOTA (MN)
The main reason behind the statute of limitations is to prevent a situation where the injured persons would sit on their rights for ages and approach the court when it will be utterly impossible for the court to determine damages. It is usually advisable for the injured persons to take action swiftly. A Minnesota law of limitation stipulates a deadline for filing any kind of personal injury case within the jurisdiction of the civil court system. The process works against the injured to the extent that he may lose his legal right to bring up his dog bite claim if he fails to file his action within two years of the injury.
“STRICT LIABILITY” FOR DOG BITES IN MINNESOTA(MN)
Strict liability rule almost applies generally in cases of a dog bite, most states that have not adopted strict liability follow a “one bite rule”. The one-bite rule is a little relaxed, for the dog owner to be held liable the rule states that he should know or have reason to have known that the dog is aggressive, but as it stands Minnesota currently does not follow the “one bite rule” hence a dog owner is left at the peril of his dog. And the dog owner should take reasonable precautions, in curtailing the excessiveness of his dog, as a dog owner cannot escape the risk of liability whenever the injured person meets the requirements above. It is immaterial that he is unaware of the attack, or he does not know of the dog’s aggressiveness.
AVAILABLE DOG BITE DEFENSES FOR A DOG OWNER IN MINNESOTA
Being able to get yourself accustomed to the relevant provisions of dog bite laws in Minnesota is a step in the right direction; it does not just guide you whenever you have erred in law but also saves from numerous stresses such as unnecessary suits and so on. We will be looking at two dog bite defenses available for a dog owner in Minnesota laws. There provocation and trespassing
Under Minnesota’s dog bite statutes it is stated clearly that the injured person must have been injured” without provocation” before he can hold the dog owner liable, this is a clear provision bereft of ambiguity. In a situation where it is established that the injured person provoked the dog, he may not be able to recover or hold the owner responsible for damages. A typical case study will be highlighted here, In a situation where a dog was minding its business someone passed by and started poking it with a stick, and the dog responded by biting the person, the dog owner is allowed in Minnesota law to plead provocation as a defense here.
This particular provision precludes persons from intentionally walking into the dangerous zones of dog reason, which is that most dogs do not like entertaining strangers. The law provides that the injured person be “lawfully” in a location or place that should be open for all and sundry. The open area should ordinarily be interpreted to denote a public place; this could be in his vicinity or on his own property or as an invited guest on someone else’s property. But in a scenario where the court found in their reasonability that the ingredients above were missing, it could be held that the injured person was trespassing. Hence, the dog owner may not be held liable for the injuries so sustained by the victim.