The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2025

F OR DECADES IN OKLAHOMA, property owners facing lawsuits for injuries caused by tenants’ dogs often relied on a “not my dog” defense. If the dog was not legally theirs, they asserted that they bore no liability. However, recent decisions and evolving municipal ordinances have narrowed that defense. Courts and cities are increasingly hold ing property owners accountable when they allow dangerous or aggressive dogs to reside on their premises, even if those dogs are owned by tenants. This article highlights the most significant case law and ordinances that shift the liability landscape. It also offers practical guidance for attorneys advising property owners on how to mitigate risk and prevent avoid able harm to others.

dog. This issue has been debated in numerous cases, and not surpris ingly, many property owners have asserted “not my dog” in defense of negligence and negligence per se claims asserted by plaintiffs after attacks committed by tenants’ dogs. For many years, property owners avoided liability for injuries caused by tenants’ dogs through appellate opinions that mostly resolved dis putes involving absentee landlords who asserted a lack of ownership or knowledge of such dogs living on their properties. 1 Whenever prop erty owners faced liability for such injuries, they asserted a “not my dog” defense regardless of whether they were an absentee landlord or

had knowledge of the dogs that attacked without provocation.

STRICT LIABILITY UNDER 4 O.S. §42.1 The starting point for any dis cussion of Oklahoma’s approach to liability for a victim’s injuries or death from an unprovoked attack is the strict liability standard implemented through 4 O.S. §42.1. Under this statute, “The owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a law ful right to be.” For 4 O.S. §42.1 to apply, the first element that must be evaluated is who can be con sidered the owner(s) of the subject

CASE STUDY: HAMPTON V. HAMMONS In Hampton by and Through Hampton v. Hammons , a young boy sustained serious injuries from being mauled by a pit bull that lived at the property owner’s home in Tulsa. 2 The injured boy lived next door to the defendant’s property, and his parents sued under various grounds, including negligence and negligence per se. The defendant allowed two pit bulls owned by his adult children to live at his property, but he dis puted any liability for the attack

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.

SEPTEMBER 2025 | 35

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL