The Regulation of Dangerous Dogs

By Gunner Briscoe

Dogs are among the most common household pets in Oklahoma. While many may see their dog as a part of the family, the law classifies them as personal property.[1] Although classified as personal property, animals present unique legal issues because they are capable of causing serious injuries to people and other animals. This article examines Oklahoma law governing dog attacks, dangerous dogs, and civil and criminal liability arising from canine attacks.

Oklahoma statutes impose strict liability for damages sustained by dogs when, without provocation, they bite or injure any person who is in or on a place they have a lawful right to be.[2] Courts have distilled four distinct elements to establish liability under the statute: 1) ownership of the dog; 2) lack of provocation; 3) a bite or other injury to the plaintiff by the dog; and 4) the plaintiff’s lawful presence at the place where the attack occurs.”[3] To trigger the statute, it is not enough for aggression from the dog to have somehow caused or contributed to the injury, the aggression must be “toward or upon [the plaintiff].”[4] Although the statute imposes strict liability irrespective of negligence, traditional common-law defenses and immunities may still apply. For example, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, in an opinion approved for publication by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, has held that the doctrine of parental immunity bars a child from recovering against a parental figure under the statute.[5] Notably, the Legislature has seen fit to limit the geographic scope of the dog bite statute. By statute, it does not apply to “rural areas of th[e] State or to any cities or towns that do not have city or village United States mail delivery service.”[6]

Similar to the dog bite statute, the Legislature has imposed strict liability on the owner of any dog (or cat) that kills or injures any livestock.[7] Unlike the strict liability dog bite statute, this statute includes a fee-shifting provision allowing the plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses.[8] Additionally, upon the commencement of a civil action to assess damages under this section, the court may, either sua sponte or upon motion of the plaintiff, provide notice to the defendant and schedule a hearing at which it may issue an order requiring seizure of the dog.[9] The court may order the dog seized if it finds probable cause to believe: 1) “the dog is a potentially dangerous dog and the threat to the health, safety and welfare of livestock or persons is of a continuing nature under the circumstances” or 2) “the dog will be adjudicated a common nuisance pursuant to subsection G of this section.”[10] If the plaintiff prevails in the suit for injury or damages, the court shall declare the animal a common nuisance and order the defendant to kill or cause to be killed the animal within 24 hours after the rendition of the judgment (subject to appeal).[11]

The statutory scheme imposing strict liability in certain circumstances should not be taken to abrogate common law negligence (or negligence per se) claims where the statutes may not apply. For example, in Wishon v. Hammond, the Court of Civil Appeals found common-law negligence to be a potentially viable claim against property owners for injuries incurred by a dog attack despite the property owners not owning the dog (and therefore the strict liability dog bite statute not applying).[12]

In addition to civil liability, state law also imposes criminal liability for dangerous dogs in certain circumstances. It is a misdemeanor to allow a dog that previously has, when unprovoked, either inflicted bites on any person or severely injured any person or created an imminent threat of injury or death to any person to run at large or aggressively bite or attack any person lawfully present.[13] This misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail and/or up to $5,000 fine.[14] If such a dog, or a dog defined as “dangerous” in Section 44 of Title 4, attacks any person resulting in death, the owner is guilty of a Class D1 felony punishable by up to five years in prison (and shall serve at least 20% of such time before release) and/or by a fine of up to $25,000.[15] Subject, however, to the affirmative defense “that the injury or death was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a willful criminal act upon the premises of the owner of the dog or was assaulting the owner of the dog.”[16]

APPROACHES VARY BY MUNICIPALITY

The regulation of dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs is a matter of concurrent statewide and municipal concern.[17] As such, both state law and municipal ordinances address the topic, and they must be interpreted cumulatively.[18] Indeed, state statute specifically provides for municipal and county regulation of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs, provided the regulation is not breed specific.[19] Because municipal regulation varies throughout Oklahoma, a comprehensive survey of municipal ordinances is beyond the scope of this article. Instead, the ordinances of Oklahoma City and Tulsa are examined as examples of how municipalities regulate dangerous dogs, and the different approaches municipalities may take.

Oklahoma City separates regulated animals into two categories: “dangerous” and “menacing”.[20] An animal is considered “dangerous” if it “bites or inflicts an injury upon a person or domestic animal.”[21] An animal is considered “menacing” if it “growls, snarls, takes an aggressive stance, or shows its teeth toward a domestic animal or person, or destroys property (e.g., a fence) in an attempt to get to a person or domestic animal.”[22] Possessing, harboring, or maintaining either a “dangerous” or “menacing” animal, except as authorized by the municipal court, is prohibited.[23] On a first offense, it is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine plus court costs and, on a second or subsequent offense, it can be filed as class B misdemeanors punishable by up to a $1,200 fine plus court costs and/or up to six months in jail.[24] The code recognizes several defenses, most notably (but not exclusively) if the animal was provoked as defined in the municipal code.[25] Additionally, any animal subject to either a “dangerous animal” or “menacing animal” citation “shall be immediately impounded.”[26] After impoundment, the animal is subject to a judicial hearing in which the municipal judge determines whether the animal is “dangerous” or “menacing” and, if so, whether to release the animal subject to conditions or to impose an order euthanizing the animal.[27]

Likewise, Tulsa divides regulated animals into two categories: “dangerous” and “potentially dangerous”.[28] In Tulsa, a “dangerous animal” is an animal that has, without provocation: 1) killed or inflicted serious bodily injury upon any person, requiring hospitalization, medical treatment at a medical facility, or rehabilitative treatment; 2) bitten two or more human beings during one or more encounter; bitten one human being two or more times during two or more encounters; or evidenced a propensity, tendency or disposition to attack without provocation or cause injury to or otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals.[29] Tulsa also has a special provision specifically defining dangerous dogs in which it incorporates the definition for dangerous dog in Title 4.[30] Tulsa defines “potentially dangerous dog” a little more broadly than Title 4, defining it as any dog that, without provocation: inflicts bites on a human; or attacks a dog, cat or domestic animal which results in the death of said dog, cat or domestic animal.[31] Similar to Oklahoma City, there is an explicit provision providing defenses against a declaration of dangerousness. Tulsa has elected to incorporate the provision of Title 4 excluding dogs from being declared dangerous verbatim.[32] Like Oklahoma City, Tulsa has a provision allowing the immediate impound of animals alleged to be dangerous.[33] Unlike Oklahoma City, Tulsa does not offer the municipal judge the option of a conditional release; the code states that “if such animal is found by the court [at an evidentiary hearing] to be a dangerous animal, the court shall order [the city] to euthanize the animal.”[34] To harbor, keep, or possess a dangerous animal, except as provided in the code, is a misdemeanor offense and, upon conviction, carries up to six months in jail and/or up to a $1,200 fine.[35] Provided however that any fine imposed as a result of dangerous dog violations may, at the discretion of the court, be offset by payments made by the dog owner to any victim of an attack by the dog excluding insurance payments.[36] Dangerous dogs, but not dangerous animals, may be kept if properly licensed, insured, and adequate precautions are taken to warn the public and secure the dog.[37] Dangerous dogs may be confiscated if the requirements of the code are not properly met, and any dog so impounded not reclaimed within 30 days is deemed to be abandoned.[38]

The two municipalities illustrate that although state law establishes minimum standards, local governments have adopted significantly different enforcement philosophies. The definitions of dangerous animals differ significantly, and while Oklahoma City permits the conditional release of dangerous animals in appropriate cases, Tulsa mandates euthanasia once dangerousness is established.

Oklahoma’s regulation of dangerous dogs operates through multiple overlapping legal mechanisms. Depending on the circumstances, a single incident may expose an owner to civil liability, criminal prosecution, municipal enforcement proceedings, and administrative measures such as impoundment or euthanasia.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gunner Briscoe is a municipal judge for Oklahoma City’s Municipal Criminal Court of Record.

 

 

 

 

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Okla. Stat. tit. 60 §2; Okla. Stat. tit. 21 §1717

[2] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §42.1; See also, Archie v. Schonlau, 2020 OK CIV APP 9, ¶13 (approved for publ’n by Okla. Sup. Ct.) (“Courts have interpreted §42.1 as a strict liability statute, meaning the Legislature in certain circumstances intended to impose liability on dog owners without regard to fault.”)

[3] Archie v. Schonlau, 2020 OK CIV APP 9, ¶7 (approved for publ’n by Okla. Sup. Ct.)

[4] Nickell v. Sumner, 1997 OK 101, ¶15 (finding dog bite statute not applicable where aggression of dog directed at horse caused horse to buck rider).

[5] Archie v. Schonlau, 2020 OK CIV APP 9, ¶7 (approved for publ’n by Okla. Sup. Ct.)

[6] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §42.3

[7] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §41(B)

[8] Id.

[9] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §41(D)(1)

[10] Id.

[11] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §41(G)

[12] Wishon v. Hammond, 2023 OK CIV APP 36, ¶2

[13] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §42.4

[14] Id.

[15] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §42.4(B); Okla. Stat. tit. 21 §20N(B)

[16] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §42.4(D)

[17] Hampton v. Hammons, 1987 OK 77, ¶27

[18]Id.

[19] Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §46(B)

[20] See generally Okla. City Mun. Code Chapter 8 Article III

[21] Okla. City Mun. Code §8-131(C)(1); not relevant for this article the code also defines as dangerous an animal that is “owned, trained, used, or harbored, primarily or in part, for the purpose of animal fighting.” Okla. City Mun. Code §8-131(C)(2)

[22] Okla. City Mun. Code §8-131(e)

[23] Okla. City Mun. Code §§8-132(a); 8-133(a)

[24] Okla. City Mun. Code §§8-154; 1-6(c)

[25] Okla. City Mun. Code §8-135(a); See also, Okla. City Mun. Code §8-131(g) (defining “provoked”).

[26] Okla. City Mun. Code §§8-132(b); 8-133(b)

[27] Okla. City Mun. Code §8-150

[28] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §100

[29] Id.

[30] Compare Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §100 with Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §44

[31] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §100 contrast Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §44 (defining “potentially dangerous dog” as a dog that, without provocation, inflicts bites on a human either on public or private property; or, attacks a dog which results in the death of said dog either on public or private property).

[32] Compare Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §602 with Okla. Stat. tit. 4 §46(C)

[33] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §107(A)

[34] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §107(B)

[35] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §§101(A)(4); 606

[36] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §604

[37] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §§600-601

[38] Tulsa Mun. Code Title 2 §603

---

Originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal – OBJ 97 No. 7 (September 2026)

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.