When a Dog Walker Has Your Dog and Someone Gets Bitten
If a dog bites someone while a dog walker has control of the leash, both the walker and the registered owner may face legal liability under Washington law. This matters to every dog bite victim in Richland, WA injured by a dog under temporary care. Washington’s strict liability statute, RCW 16.08.040, holds the “owner” of a biting dog responsible for damages regardless of the dog’s history of aggression. But “owner” in Washington extends beyond the registered name. If you or your child were bitten by a dog in the custody of a walker, sitter, or other third party, you may have more legal options than you realize.
Telaré Law helps dog bite victims across the Tri-Cities pursue the compensation they deserve. Call 509-461-9156 or reach out to our team today to discuss your case.
How Washington Defines “Owner” Beyond the Registered Name
Washington’s definition of “owner” in its dangerous dog statutes is one of the broadest in the country, directly affecting dog walker liability in Richland, WA. Under RCW 16.08.070(7), “owner” means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having control or custody of an animal. This definition applies throughout RCW 16.08.070 through 16.08.100, which govern dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. Whether courts apply this same definition to the strict liability statute in RCW 16.08.040 has not been definitively settled, but the language reflects the state’s approach of looking beyond formal registration. A dog walker who accepts temporary custody during a paid walk could potentially be considered an “owner,” exposing them to direct liability if the dog bites someone.
This broad interpretation is significant for third-party dog bite claims in Washington. Courts and legal practitioners have recognized that harboring or exercising control over an animal can trigger the responsibilities that come with “ownership” under Washington’s dog bite statute. For a victim, this means you may pursue a claim against anyone who had control of the animal at the time of the bite, including professional dog walkers, pet sitters, or even friends.
💡 Pro Tip: Document everyone who had custody of the dog at the time of the bite. Collect names, business cards, and contracts between the walker and registered owner.
Washington Dog Bite Strict Liability and the “One-Bite Rule”
Washington does not follow the traditional “one-bite rule” that protects dog owners the first time their animal injures someone. Under RCW 16.08.040(1), the owner of any dog that bites a person in a public place or lawfully on private property is liable for damages “regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner’s knowledge of such viciousness.” This strict liability standard means victims don’t need to prove the dog had a history of aggression.
The Washington Supreme Court discussed related common-law principles in Thompson v. Wold (1955). In Thompson v. Wold, 47 Wn.2d 782 (1955), the court applied Montana common law because the bite occurred in Montana and affirmed that, under the common law applicable to those facts, owner liability required knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities. That case did not alter Washington’s statutory strict liability standard, which had been enacted earlier in what is now RCW 16.08.040.
How Strict Liability Helps Dog Bite Victims
The no-fault standard under RCW 16.08.040 shifts the focus away from negligence and toward custody and control. A dog walker in Richland cannot escape liability simply by arguing the dog had never bitten anyone before. If you were bitten while lawfully present, the central questions become who had custody of the dog and whether the statutory definition of “owner” applies. To learn more, read about strict liability for dog bites in Richland.
💡 Pro Tip: The statutory exemption under RCW 16.08.040(2) applies to lawful use of police dogs. RCW 16.08.060 provides that proof of provocation is a complete defense, and the victim must have been lawfully present under RCW 16.08.050.
Who Can Be Held Liable: Dog Walker, Owner, or Both?
In many dog bite cases in Richland, WA, both the registered owner and the dog walker may share liability. Washington’s comparative fault statute, RCW 4.22.070, requires the trier of fact to assign a percentage of fault to every at-fault party. This means victims could potentially recover from both parties, with each responsible for their proportionate share.
Agency Principles and Joint Liability
When a dog walker acts as an agent or servant of the registered owner, the legal consequences intensify. Under RCW 4.22.070(1)(a), if a jury finds that the walker was acting as an agent of the registered owner, the owner (as principal) can be held liable for the walker’s proportionate share of fault. This operates as a modified form of joint and several liability rather than an automatic right to recover the full amount of damages from either party.
Under agency principles, the owner is charged with the knowledge of anyone entrusted with the dog’s custody. As recognized in Thompson v. Wold, this can include a servant or family member. A dog walker operating under a contract may fit within this framework.
When the Victim Bears No Fault
If the dog bite victim has no fault in the incident, Washington law provides stronger protection. Under RCW 4.22.070(1)(b), when the claimant is blameless, defendants against whom judgment is entered are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their proportionate shares of the claimant’s total damages. This creates a limited form of joint and several liability in favor of a fault-free claimant.
| Liability Scenario | Legal Basis | What It Means for the Victim |
|---|---|---|
| Dog walker qualifies as statutory “owner” | RCW 16.08.070(7) | Walker may face strict liability under RCW 16.08.040 |
| Walker acted as agent of registered owner | RCW 4.22.070(1)(a) | Owner may be liable for the walker’s proportionate share under a modified joint-and-several rule |
| Victim had zero fault | RCW 4.22.070(1)(b) | Defendants against whom judgment is entered are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their proportionate shares of the claimant’s total damages |
| Multiple at-fault parties, victim partly at fault | RCW 4.22.070(1) | Each defendant pays their proportionate share |
💡 Pro Tip: If you were a bystander, postal worker, or child when the bite occurred, your lack of fault may entitle you to recover full damages from the defendants who are ultimately held liable, subject to how judgments are entered against them.
What a Dog Bite Victim Should Do After an Attack by a Walked Dog
The steps you take immediately after a dog bite can significantly affect your claim. Whether the dog was in the custody of a professional walker, neighbor, or pet sitter, gathering information early is critical.
- Seek prompt medical attention and keep all treatment records
- Identify the dog walker by name, phone number, and business name
- Obtain the registered owner’s contact and insurance information
- Photograph your injuries, the location, and the dog if possible
- Report the bite to Richland animal control authorities
- Document whether the bite occurred in a public place or on private property
Each step helps establish the factual foundation your claim depends on. Washington’s strict liability framework focuses on where the bite occurred and who had custody, so documenting these details is essential. Medical records also serve as primary proof of your damages.
💡 Pro Tip: Filing a report with local animal control creates an official record that can support your civil claim.
How Richland Dog Bite Laws Interact with Local Ordinances
Washington distinguishes between “dangerous dogs” regulated under state law and “potentially dangerous dogs” regulated through local ordinances. Under RCW 16.08.070, a “potentially dangerous dog” includes any dog that, when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal. State law under RCW 16.08.090(2) recognizes local government authority to regulate these animals, and Richland may impose additional requirements on dog owners and custodians.
For victims pursuing third-party dog bite claims in Richland, local ordinances may create additional obligations the dog walker or owner failed to meet. A violation of a local leash law, muzzle requirement, or containment rule can serve as evidence of negligence on top of the strict liability claim under state law.
💡 Pro Tip: Check whether the dog had any prior “potentially dangerous dog” designation under Richland’s local ordinances. A prior designation can strengthen your case.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can a dog walker be sued for a dog bite in Richland, WA?
Yes, in many circumstances a dog walker may face liability. Washington law under RCW 16.08.070(7) defines “owner” broadly to include anyone possessing, harboring, keeping, or having control or custody of an animal. A dog walker with temporary custody during a paid walk may be treated as a statutory owner and face strict liability under RCW 16.08.040.
2. Does the dog need a history of biting for the victim to have a claim?
No. Washington’s strict liability statute, RCW 16.08.040, applies regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or anyone’s knowledge of that viciousness. A victim does not need to prove prior bite history to recover damages.
3. Can I sue both the dog walker and the registered owner?
In many cases, yes. Under Washington’s comparative fault statute, RCW 4.22.070, the trier of fact assigns a percentage of fault to every at-fault entity. If a jury finds the walker was acting as an agent of the owner, the owner may be held liable for the walker’s proportionate share under the modified joint-and-several rule in RCW 4.22.070(1)(a). Full joint-and-several liability to pursue the entire damages from any single defendant is not automatic under subsection (1)(a).
4. What if I was partially at fault for the dog bite?
Washington applies comparative fault, which means your recovery may be reduced by your percentage of responsibility. However, partial fault does not bar your claim. If you bore no fault, RCW 4.22.070(1)(b) provides a limited form of joint and several liability: defendants against whom judgment is entered are jointly and severally liable for the sum of their proportionate shares of the claimant’s total damages. Note that under RCW 16.08.060, proof of provocation is a complete defense.
5. Does the police dog exception apply to dog walkers?
No. The exemption under RCW 16.08.040(2) applies only to the lawful application of a police dog as defined in RCW 4.24.410. No such exception exists for private dog walkers or pet sitters.
Protecting Your Rights After a Dog Walker Bite Incident
A dog bite caused by a dog under a walker’s control can leave you with painful injuries, medical bills, and difficult questions about who is responsible. Washington law provides strong protections for victims through its strict liability framework and broad definition of ownership. Whether the responsible party is a professional dog walker, a casual pet sitter, or the registered owner, you may have grounds to pursue full compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
If you or a loved one suffered a dog bite in Richland, WA, Telaré Law is ready to help you evaluate your options. Contact a dog bite lawyer in Richland by calling 509-461-9156 or schedule a consultation online to get started.
