Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1025 (2026)

Liability for dog bites; owner information; military and police work; definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

11-1025. Liability for dog bites; owner information; military and police work; definitions

A. The owner of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness.

B. A person who owns or is responsible for the care of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall provide the owner's contact information to the person who suffered the dog bite.

C. The breed of a dog may not be considered in findings of facts or conclusions of law entered by a court, administrative law judge, hearing officer, arbitrator or other legal decision-maker regarding whether a dog is aggressive or vicious or has created liability.

D. This section and section 11-1020 do not allow the bringing of an action for damages against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking act or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:

1. Apprehending or holding a suspect if the employee had a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity.

2. Investigating a crime or possible crime.

3. Executing a warrant.

4. Defending a peace officer or another person.

E. Subsection D of this section does not apply in any case in which the victim of the bite was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.

F. Subsection D of this section applies only if a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subsection D of this section.

G. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Aggressive" means that a dog has bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation or has a known history of attacking persons or domestic animals without provocation.

2. "Breed" means the actual or perceived breed or mixture of breeds of a dog.

3. "Provocation" means tormenting, attacking or inciting a dog and includes the standard for determining provocation prescribed in section 11-1027.

4. "Vicious" means that a dog has a propensity to attack, to cause injury to or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings without provocation or has been found to have any of these traits after a hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction or before a hearing officer pursuant to section 11-1006.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Weekly v. City of Mesa, 888 P.2d 1346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Weekly v. City of Mesa, 888 P.2d 1346 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 25× “Appellant Gregory Scott Weekly (plaintiff) appeals from judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, the City of Mesa (the City), 1 on his claim for strict liability pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-1025 (the dog bite statute) for injuries plaintiff received from being bitten by a police dog…”

Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (NY 2004). · cites it 2× “Ariz Rev Stat § 11-1025; Cal Civ Code § 3342; Fla Stat Ann § 767.”

Spirlong v. Browne, 336 P.3d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “1988) (discussing what is now A.R.S. § 11-1025; statutory owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs, but “strict liability does not mean absolute liability”).”

Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 SD 10 (S.D. 2001). · cites it 2× “140, § 155 (West 1995); Mich.Comp.Laws § 287.351 (1996); Minn.Stat.Ann.”

Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 691 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2005). “See Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 11-1025(B) (2003).”

Stensrud v. Friedberg (D. Ariz. 2023). · cites it 2× “" A.R.S. § 11-1025(F)(3). Provocation "shall be determined by whether a reasonable 27 person would expect that the conduct or circumstances would be likely to provoke a 28 dog.”

Head v. Mesa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 11-1025(D). And he did not adequately address the portion of the policy that permits officers to deploy a police dog without warning for tactical reasons.”

Bonay Goldhagen v. Susan Pasmowitz (084668) (Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. 2021). “§ 13-21-124 (5)(e) (excluding “veterinary health care worker[s],” “dog groomer[s], and others” from dog-bite liability); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1025 (barring dog bite claims against “any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work” if the bite…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1025(B) — 1 case

Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep't, 691 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 2005). “See Ariz. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 11-1025(B) (2003).”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1025(D) — 1 case

Head v. Mesa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “See A.R.S. § 11-1025(D). And he did not adequately address the portion of the policy that permits officers to deploy a police dog without warning for tactical reasons.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-1025(F)(3) — 1 case

Stensrud v. Friedberg (D. Ariz. 2023). “" A.R.S. § 11-1025(F)(3). Provocation "shall be determined by whether a reasonable 27 person would expect that the conduct or circumstances would be likely to provoke a 28 dog.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.