Hoạt động 24/7
Hoạt động 24/7
New Hampshire holds dog owners strictly liable. Under RSA 466:19, a person hurt by a dog can recover damages from whoever owns, keeps, or possesses it, without proving the dog was dangerous or that the owner knew anything about it. The one written exception is for someone who was committing a trespass or other tort when the dog did the damage.
This page covers what you must prove, local leash rules, owners and keepers, the trespass exception, comparative fault, a child’s case, landlords, every deadline including the 60 day notice for a claim against a town, damages, the vicious dog law that changed on January 1, 2026 and changes again on January 1, 2027, rabies rules, settlements, and insurance.
Dog Bite Laws handles dog attack cases. Talk to us for free, and pay no fee unless we recover money for you.
New Hampshire is a strict liability state, and it has been for a very long time. The statute says any person “to whom or to whose property” damage is occasioned by a dog they do not own or keep is entitled to recover damages from “the person who owns, keeps, or possesses the dog.” It was first enacted in 1851 and last reworded in 1995.
Strict liability means you do not have to show the dog had bitten anyone before, or that the owner did anything careless. In Allgeyer v. Lincoln (1984) the Supreme Court explained that the statute exists “to obviate the difficulty of showing the owner’s knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog as required at common law.” So New Hampshire does not follow the one bite rule.
The court has also set a limit. Liability attaches to harm caused by a dog’s “vicious or mischievous acts.” In Noyes v. Labrecque (1965) a dog simply ran into the street in front of a motorcycle, the riders alleged nothing vicious or mischievous about it, and the court held the statute did not apply. That is the line an insurer will try to draw in a case with no bite.
One older rule is gone. A companion statute, RSA 466:20, once gave dog bite victims double damages. It was repealed effective January 1, 1986, so double damages appear in older opinions but not in a case today.
A claim under RSA 466:19 comes down to a short list:
The leading case on causation is Bohan v. Ritzo, decided in 1996. A small dog came out of a Portsmouth driveway toward a passing cyclist’s leg. He swung his leg out to fend it off and fell, breaking bones that needed two surgeries. The dog never touched him. The court rejected the argument that the statute requires “an actual bite or other direct physical contact” and affirmed his verdict, noting that he relied on specific mischievous actions by the dog, not its “mere presence.” We cover this kind of claim in dog attack without a bite.
You can also sue in negligence alongside the statute. In Hewes v. Roby (1992), where dogs nipping at a horse’s heels caused it to rear and its driver fell, the court held a trial judge was wrong to make the plaintiffs choose between the two theories.
One limit on who can sue. In Douglas v. Fulis (1994) a father watched a golden retriever bite his three year old daughter, and the court held the statute does not cover a bystander’s own emotional distress. Her claims for her injuries and medical bills went forward. The court declined to extend to the statute the bystander rule of Corso v. Merrill, a negligence rule that requires the owner’s negligence and serious mental and emotional harm accompanied by objective physical symptoms.
New Hampshire does not have one statewide leash law that applies everywhere. It has two layers, and which one governs depends on the town where the bite happened.
The layer that applies everywhere is the nuisance statute. Under RSA 466:31 a dog is a nuisance if it is “at large,” meaning off its owner’s or keeper’s premises and not under the control of a person whose presence and attention would reasonably control it, unless the owner or custodian is with it. Exceptions cover hunting, herding, training, and similar uses. The stricter layer is the dog control law in RSA 466:30-a, which makes it unlawful for any dog to run at large unless accompanied. That section takes effect only in a city or town whose voters adopt it by ballot question, and other towns may pass their own ordinances. Even then, accompanied means the owner can see or hear the dog or knows where it is, not that it was leashed.
For your claim, a violation is not the foundation. RSA 466:19 already makes the owner pay without proof of carelessness. Under RSA 466:30-a, an officer in a town that adopted it may issue the owner a notice of violation for a nuisance dog, which is a dated official record of the incident. Your town clerk or animal control officer can tell you which local rule applies where you were bitten, and your lawyer can say whether a violation adds anything to a negligence count.
The statute reaches three kinds of defendant: the person who “owns, keeps, or possesses” the dog. It does not define any of them. The Supreme Court has explained the reason for the wider net: proving who actually owns an animal is often hard, so “the law holds the person who harbors him responsible for the damage he may do while in his custody or control.” That language dates to 1872 and the court repeated it in 1976.
Possible defendants include the actual owner, a household member who harbors and controls the dog, whoever had the dog that day, and, because the statute says so, a parent or guardian when the owner or keeper is a minor.
There is an older limit to raise early. In Gagnon v. Martin (1976) a six year old’s family settled with the dog’s owners and then sued a man they said was the keeper. The court held the statute gave a remedy against the owner or the keeper, not both, and dismissed the second suit. That decision read the pre-1995 wording, but before you settle with anyone, make sure every possible defendant and policy has been identified.
The protection runs only to people who did not own or keep the dog themselves: the statute covers damage “by a dog not owned or kept by such person.” If you were looking after the dog yourself when it hurt you, tell your lawyer on the first call. For the general rules, see what determines ownership of a dog.
Police dogs are a special case. In Blais v. Town of Goffstown (1979) the court held the dog statutes do not apply to a town’s reasonable use of a police dog.
RSA 466:19 contains one exception. The owner does not pay if “the damage was occasioned to a person who was engaged in the commission of a trespass or other tort.”
The trespass half is narrower than insurers suggest. In Frenette v. Gillis (1965) a man looking to buy lumber drove through an open barway into a Salem farm field to ask the owners, who were working there, whether they had any for sale. Two dogs attacked as he got out of his truck, even though he had seen a “Beware of the Dog” sign at the house earlier. The court held he was not a trespasser, because he was “on a lawful business mission at a reasonable hour,” and refused a narrower, technical definition of trespass. The court relied on an earlier definition saying that a person who uses a walkway to another’s building “for a lawful purpose and made in a lawful reasonable manner under reasonable circumstances” does not become a trespasser.
The word provocation does not appear in the statute. It comes in through fault. In Bohan the court gave its own example: a person who walks up to a quiet dog and hits it on the nose with a stick should have that conduct weighed by the jury. Bohan also said a comparative causation instruction might be appropriate if the evidence showed the victim “voluntarily or unreasonably exposed himself to a foreseeable risk of injury.” A split-second reaction to a surprise attack is not that, as Bohan said. If an adjuster is calling what you did provocation, read about dog bite provocation first.
Separately, RSA 466:28 lets any person kill a dog that “suddenly assaults” them while they are peaceably walking or riding outside the owner’s enclosure. Our guide on whether you can kill a dog that is attacking you covers the broader question.
New Hampshire uses modified comparative fault, and it applies to dog bite claims. Under RSA 507:7-d, your own fault does not bar recovery if it “was not greater than the fault of the defendant, or the defendants in the aggregate,” and your damages are reduced in proportion to your share. In Bohan the Supreme Court held that this statute applies to claims under RSA 466:19. Because the owner’s liability does not depend on fault, the court told juries to compare causation: how much your own unreasonable conduct contributed to the injury.
The arithmetic matters more than the label:
The burden is on the owner. The statute says the burden of proving the existence or amount of fault “shall rest upon the party making such allegation.” In Bohan the jury never weighed the cyclist’s fault at all, because there was no evidence he knowingly put himself in danger or provoked the dog.
One related rule affects who pays. Under RSA 507:7-e, a defendant found less than 50 percent at fault pays only its own share, which can matter when an owner with little coverage is sued alongside someone with more. Before July 1, 1986, by contrast, any causal negligence by the victim barred a claim under the dog statute entirely.
A child bitten in New Hampshire has more time than an adult. RSA 508:8 lets an infant bring a personal action “within 2 years after such disability is removed,” and New Hampshire sets the age of majority at 18. So a child’s own claim can be filed until the twentieth birthday, though waiting that long lets records and witnesses disappear.
Parents have their own claim on their own clock. In Allgeyer v. Lincoln, where a ten year old was bitten walking into a home where his mother was visiting, the jury returned one verdict for the boy and a separate one for his father’s medical expenses. Do not assume the child’s longer deadline also covers the bills you paid; ask a lawyer about your own deadline early.
Expect the insurer to talk about your child’s behavior. The Allgeyer jury found the boy 20 percent negligent and reduced his award, under 1984 law. Today comparative fault applies to the statutory claim too, so a child’s share of fault reduces the award and ends the claim only if it is greater than the defendants’. Under RSA 507:7-d, the owner must prove any fault. If an adjuster is blaming your child, read whether a child can provoke a dog.
In Douglas v. Fulis the three year old had permanent scars on her face, ear, and head. An early offer for a child can arrive before anyone knows how a scar will heal. Our page on minor dog bite settlements explains how these cases are valued.
A landlord is not automatically liable for a tenant’s dog in New Hampshire. The strict liability statute runs against whoever owns, keeps, or possesses the dog, and a landlord who simply rents to a dog owner is none of those.
The closest Supreme Court decision is Richards v. Leppard (1978). A tenant’s dog at a leased home on Shell Camp Lake in Gilmanton bit a child. The landlord swore he was not the owner or keeper and had no possession or control of the dog, and the court held that no claim lay against him under the statute or in negligence, finding “no duty in this case breached by the lessor.” It is a short decision that turned on those facts.
A property owner can still be responsible in the right case:
If the bite happened at a rental, gather the lease and pet clause, complaints to the landlord about the dog, who controlled the place where it happened, and earlier incidents the landlord knew about. The same questions apply at a business or a dog park.
New Hampshire gives three years. RSA 508:4 says personal actions “may be brought only within 3 years of the act or omission complained of,” with a discovery rule for injuries that could not reasonably have been discovered at the time.
A claim against a town is also narrower than these deadlines suggest. RSA 507-B allows liability arising from motor vehicles and premises and otherwise only as another statute provides, and the dog statute does not apply to a town’s reasonable use of a police dog.
The deadlines that really decide cases are shorter: the 10 day rabies confinement, the dog officer’s file, and the healing wound you need to photograph. Our guide to the dog bite statute of limitations explains how these clocks interact.
New Hampshire’s own cases show the range. A cyclist who never felt teeth broke bones that needed screws, wires, and a second operation, and missed seven and a half months of work. A woman bitten twice by a police dog was left with multiple lacerations and permanent scarring on both legs. A three year old was scarred on her face, ear, and head. All three claims were decided under the same short statute.
Keep dated photos, a list of appointments, and the days missed from work or school as you heal. Those details are the evidence of what the injury cost you.
New Hampshire compensates rather than punishes. In a tort case, the Supreme Court said in Vratsenes v. N.H. Auto (1972), the injured party is entitled to “full compensation for all the injury sustained, mental as well as material.” In Bohan that included the cyclist’s lost wages. For a deeper look, see dog bite compensation.
In Brannigan v. Usitalo (1991) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, on equal protection grounds, the $875,000 cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury cases in RSA 508:4-d.
Punitive damages are not available. RSA 507:16 says “No punitive damages shall be awarded in any action, unless otherwise provided by statute.” New Hampshire has a substitute in tort cases generally, though. In Vratsenes the Supreme Court held that when the act involved is “wanton, malicious, or oppressive, the compensatory damages awarded may reflect the aggravating circumstances.”
Since January 1, 2026, the dog penalty statute adds its own line. Under RSA 466:31-a, for a vicious offense “the owner of the dog shall be liable for all medical bills sustained by the person who was attacked,” and the same section says nothing in it limits your civil recovery under RSA 466:19.
Caps do apply in some cases:
New Hampshire’s dog statute, RSA 466:31, sorts problem dogs into three categories by what they do: nuisance, menace, and vicious. A dog is a menace if it growls at, snaps at, or chases a person off the owner’s premises, or chases vehicles on public ways. A dog is vicious if, alone or in a pack, it bites, attacks, or preys on people, domestic animals, game, or fowl.
Under RSA 466:31-a, an officer or other authorized person gives the owner notice, and the owner either pays a civil forfeiture to the town clerk within 96 hours or the case goes to district or municipal court. Under the current forfeiture schedule, which took effect January 1, 2026:
The same 2025 law, chapter 203, also says court proceedings “shall” now be started, instead of “may,” when a vicious dog threatens public safety. An owner who fails to abate the problem after an order can have the dog taken into custody and disposed of as the court orders. Since September 30, 2025, towns may also adopt bylaws on muzzling vicious dogs.
Another change is coming. On January 1, 2027, the vicious category will cover a dog that bites or attacks “when not on the owner’s property,” so a bite on the owner’s own property will fall outside the vicious category. Your civil claim under RSA 466:19 for that bite is unaffected.
For your case, a vicious offense notice or a paid forfeiture is an official town record of the incident. For how repeat bites are handled, see how many times a dog can bite before being put down.
Report the bite to your town’s animal control officer or police department, and to the town clerk if your town has no animal officer. New Hampshire’s health department tells people who are bitten to “seek medical attention immediately and notify the local animal control officer.” Rabies enforcement is local: the department says state officials do not manage seizure or quarantine in suspected rabies cases, which falls to the town, often through its animal control officer or police. Here is what happens after a dog bite is reported.
Reporting also gets you a fast answer. Under RSA 466:31, II-a, if a dog punctured your skin and the report identified the dog and owner, the animal officer or town clerk must tell you, or a child’s parent, within 24 hours whether town records show the dog vaccinated against rabies.
The confinement rules are in RSA 436:105:
New Hampshire requires every dog three months and older to be vaccinated against rabies under RSA 436:100, and a town will not license a dog without proof. If the dog that bit you was never vaccinated, read about being bitten by an unvaccinated dog. Rabies is present here: the state laboratory reported 33 positive animal cases in 2023, according to the department. It also notes that when a biting dog is confined for its 10 days, treatment can usually wait until the observation ends, a decision for your doctor.
An average settlement figure would say little about your own claim. The best national figure is insurance data. For 2025 the Insurance Information Institute and State Farm put the average cost of a dog-related injury claim at $65,450 across 28,450 claims nationwide. That is an industry average of claims large and small, not a settlement value, and it does not predict any one case.
New Hampshire’s reported decisions show how juries treated real injuries, decades ago. In Bohan v. Ritzo a jury awarded $190,000 to a cyclist with surgically repaired fractures, affirmed in 1996. In Allgeyer v. Lincoln a 1980s jury valued a ten year old’s bite at $25,000 before reducing it for his share of fault. Those numbers reflect their facts and era, not what a case is worth now.
What actually moves the number in a New Hampshire case:
For a broader picture, see our dog bite settlement amounts guide, and the dog bite settlement calculator gives a rough sense of ranges.
The dog owner’s insurance policy matters. TheInsurance Information Institute says homeowners and renters policies typically cover dog bite liability “up to the liability limits (typically $100,000 to $300,000),” and that if a claim exceeds the limit, the owner is responsible for the rest.
Because the statute reaches whoever owns, keeps, or possesses the dog, ask about the coverage of each of them. Ask for each full policy, endorsements included, and its limit.
On breed, the Insurance Information Institute says some insurers will not insure homeowners who own certain breeds, while others decide case by case. Coverage depends on the policy itself, which makes it important to look for every possible policy and defendant.
Do not assume there is no insurance because the owner says so, or because of what kind of dog it was. And do not give the owner’s insurer a recorded statement before you have spoken to a lawyer. What you say can be used to argue for a share of fault under RSA 507:7-d.
For the full sequence, read our guide on how to file a dog bite claim.
Dog Bite Laws handles dog attack cases, and New Hampshire is a state where the statute is on your side but the details still decide the outcome. Strict liability under RSA 466:19 means the work goes into everything around it: finding every owner, keeper, and person in possession of the dog before anyone settles; getting the animal control file and any vicious or menace offense records; meeting the 60 day notice if a town is involved; answering the insurer’s claim that you trespassed, provoked the dog, or were its keeper; and building the medical record that shows what a scar will cost over a lifetime.
We deal with the insurer so you do not have to, and we make sure a friendly phone call does not quietly turn into a share of fault assigned to you. We work on a contingency fee, so there is nothing to pay up front and no fee unless we recover money for you. Founding attorney Michael Agruss built the firm around injury clients who need someone else to carry the paperwork.
We take dog bite cases across New Hampshire, including Manchester, Nashua, Concord, Dover, Rochester, and Portsmouth. If you or your child was bitten, contact us for a free consultation. We will tell you honestly whether there is a claim worth bringing.
No. RSA 466:19 makes the person who owns, keeps, or possesses a dog liable for the damage it causes, so a victim does not have to show the dog bit anyone before or that the owner knew it was dangerous. The Supreme Court has said the law was written to remove exactly that burden. What you do need is vicious or mischievous conduct by the dog that caused your injury.
You may. In Bohan v. Ritzo the Supreme Court upheld a verdict for a cyclist who crashed when a dog ran at his leg, holding the statute does not require a bite or any physical contact. The cyclist did not rely on the dog's mere presence, though. He showed specific mischievous conduct, the dog running at his leg as if to bite, that caused the fall.
Three years from the bite for an adult, under RSA 508:4. A child has until two years after turning 18. If a town, city, county, or school district is involved, you must also send written notice to its clerk by registered mail within 60 days. For a state agency, written notice within 180 days is required.
Not necessarily. The statute bars recovery only for someone engaged in a trespass or other tort, and the Supreme Court held in Frenette v. Gillis that a man who drove onto a farm field on a lawful business mission at a reasonable hour, to ask about buying lumber, was not a trespasser.
Yes, as long as your share is not greater than the fault of everyone you sue combined. A jury reduces your award by your percentage, so at 30 percent you keep 70 percent of your damages. The dog owner has to prove your fault, and a reflexive reaction to a sudden attack is not the kind of conduct that counts.
No. RSA 507:16 outlaws punitive damages unless a statute allows them, and the dog statutes do not. In tort cases generally, New Hampshire lets compensatory damages reflect aggravating circumstances when the conduct involved was wanton, malicious, or oppressive. The Supreme Court also struck down the general cap on noneconomic damages in 1991.
From January 1, 2026, a first vicious dog offense carries a $400 forfeiture instead of $100, a second within a year $1,000 instead of $400, and the owner is liable for all medical bills of the person attacked. From January 1, 2027, the vicious offense will cover only bites and attacks off the owner's property. Neither change limits a civil claim under RSA 466:19.
"*" là ký hiệu cho các trường bắt buộc
"*" là ký hiệu cho các trường bắt buộc
Hãy liên hệ với chúng tôi qua điện thoại, email, tin nhắn hoặc trò chuyện trực tuyến để trao đổi về trường hợp của bạn.