Alaska Dog Bite Laws

Alaska has not enacted a dog bite statute. Instead, rulings issued by the Alaska Supreme Court govern the circumstances under which a dog owner can be held liable. The courts have ruled that Alaska primarily follows the one-bite rule (Hale v. O’Neill) as well as negligence rules (Sinclair v. Okata). Under the one-bite rule, an owner may be held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog if it had a “dangerous tendency” about which the owner knew or should have known, and that this dangerous tendency resulted in an injury.

Under a negligence theory, a victim would have to prove that the owner owed a duty to the victim (that is, a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping their dog under control), the owner breached that duty, and the injuries that the victim sustained were proximately caused by the owner’s breach of duty. Alaskan courts have also ruled that owners can be held liable under the theory of negligence per se. This means that an owner’s violation of a statute or local ordinance is sufficient evidence to impose liability. In the context of dog bites, this would probably involve the owner’s violation of any local leash ordinance.