Although many states treat the law in different ways, Texas has generally stated that unless a dog had vicious tendencies, an owner would not be liable for a dog bite.  In a new Texas Supreme Court case, the court has created a new issue for Texas dog owners.  More specifically, if a dog has not previously shown vicious tendencies and attacks someone, a dog owner now owes a duty to try to prevent the attack from continuing and/or to try to stop the attack.  See Bushnell v. Mott, 2008 WL 820680 (Tex. 2008). 

            In the Bushnell case, Plaintiff sold health and wellness products, and Plaintiff went to Defendant's home to deliver some products that Defendant had purchased.  When Defendant opened the door, Defendant's dogs pushed past and rushed out.  Defendant's dogs bit Plaintiff multiple times in several places, and Plaintiff claimed that Defendant "made no attempt to stop the attack, and that Mott did not assist Bushnell after the attack."  The Texas Supreme Court, citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518 cmt. j (1977), stated that an owner of a dog or cat is liable if he sees the animal about to attack and does not exercise reasonable care to prevent the attack.  The court reasoned that there was a fact issue as to what Mott did after the attack began, and the court reversed the summary judgment to allow Plaintiff's case to proceed.  Consequently, a dog owner needs to be aware of the fact that if their dog attacks a human being, the dog owner may now be required to try to stop the fight.  I thought that you might find this opinion of interest.

            William "Pat" Huttenbach is a shareholder in Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C.'s litigation section and can be contacted at phuttenbach@hirschwest.com.