Pompeii famously has a mosaic in the front of a home with a mean-looking dog and the Latin phrase “Cave Canem” [pronounced “ka-way kah-nem”], which translates to “beware of dog.” The canine occupies a strange place in the annals of mankind’s history as both a close companion, a guardian, a weapon, and a tool. Dogs, at Oregon law, are arguably considered “abnormally dangerous” objects in the tort context because, in legal terms, they are adjacent to wild animals. If you brought a puma to a family reunion and it went crazy and attacked someone, you cannot argue, “he has never done this before.” A puma is a wild animal, and your action in introducing it into a location where people would be in close proximity is inherently negligent, hence the lawsuit against the puma-person would just require the injured party to show that the injury occurred, not that the injury was unforeseen. The same goes for any economic damages shown by the puma when it rips apart a couch or gnaws on something important. For dogs, a similar strict liability standard is applied. If someone is bitten, harmed, or something is destroyed by the dog, it’s not a question of whether the individual dog has hurt or damaged things before. At law, it is not unexpected for a dog to bite. Nonetheless, the owner can make defensive arguments such as provocation or self-defense [e.g., if a person comes along and kicks the dog, it’s not unexpected that it would lash out, and the dog owner is under less scrutiny in that situation].
In Oregon, if a dog is deemed dangerous, the owner must have heightened precautions, or they will find themselves in greater legal trouble if harm occurs [e.g., muzzles in public, liability insurance, and confining the dog]. Dogs in Oregon are subject to a one-bite rule, where the owner must assume the dog is dangerous from the first moment they receive notice that the dog is exhibiting dangerous behavior from others or exhibits aggressive behavior in front of the owner. In these dangerous dog situations, the fact that a dog was provoked may not overcome the fact that the owner should have confined the dog away from a publicly accessible location.
For a real estate agent, why does this matter? Because anywhere between 40-50% of households in this state have dogs. If your seller has a dog and they want to make their house available for showings, you need to have a serious conversation with the seller about the legal risk that Fido poses when people go carousing through the home. If possible, it’s best to have the dog off the property during showings, rather than having him in the back yard where he could bite at people when they walk past the fence or in a closed mudroom where a curious buyer opening a door to a snappy animal will result in near immediate, strict seller liability.