Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 3961 (2026)

Reimbursement for damage done by animals

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Injuries and damages by animal. When an animal damages a person or that person's property due to negligence of the animal's owner or keeper, the owner or keeper of that animal is liable in a civil action to the person injured for the amount of damage done if the damage was not occasioned through the fault of the person injured.

[PL 2001, c. 220, §1 (NEW).]

2. Injuries by dog. Notwithstanding subsection 1, when a dog injures a person who is not on the owner's or keeper's premises at the time of the injury, the owner or keeper of the dog is liable in a civil action to the person injured for the amount of the damages. Any fault on the part of the person injured may not reduce the damages recovered for physical injury to that person unless the court determines that the fault of the person injured exceeded the fault of the dog's keeper or owner.

[PL 2001, c. 220, §1 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 383, §3 (NEW). PL 1999, c. 254, §8 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 220, §1 (RPR).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: Parrish v. Wright, 2003 ME 90 (Me. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Parrish v. Wright, 2003 ME 90 (Me. 2003). · cites it 5× “Parrish argues that the court erred in determining that (1) the Wrights were not keepers of the dog within the meaning of 7 M.R.S.A. § 3961 (Pamph.1999); (2) there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Wrights were subject to common law liability for…”

Morgan v. Marquis, 50 A.3d 1 (Me. 2012). · cites it 5× “The complaint sought damages on three surviving theories: (1) statutory liability pursuant to 7 M.R.S. § 3961(1) (2011); 2 (2) common law strict liability; and (3) negligence.”

Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Lewis v. Penney, 632 A.2d 439 (Me. 1993). · cites it 2× “In 1987, the legislature replaced section 3651 with the similar 7 M.R.S.A. § 3961. The new section provides that: When a dog does damage to a person or his property, the owner or keeper of the dog is liable in a civil action to the person injured for the amount of damage done,…”

Irwin v. Degtiarov, 8 N.E.3d 296 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). “2321 (2008); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 7, § 3961 (2002); N.”

Richardie Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 2017 ME 166 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Vigliotta v. Ditomasso (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 4× “Compare 7 M.R.S. § 3961 (1991) with 7 M.R.S. § 3961 (2011).”

Delgreco v. Bangor Humane Soc'y (Me. Super. Ct 2023). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff's Personal Injury Claims Maine recognizes three separate legal theories under which a plaintiff who has suffered damages from a dog bite may obtain relief: common law strict liability, common law negligence, and statutory liability under 7 M.”

Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Ramsay v. Dube (Me. Super. Ct 2018). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff alleges three causes of action: count I, common law strict liability; 1 count II, negligence; and count III, statutory liability pursuant to 7 M.R.S. § 3961. On March 23, 2017, defendant Bryant filed an answer.”

Hallgren v. Walsh (Me. Super. Ct 2008). · cites it 2× “7 M.R.S.A. § 3961 7 M.R.S.A. § 3961 provides: 5 1.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 3961(1) — 4 cases

Morgan v. Marquis, 50 A.3d 1 (Me. 2012). “The complaint sought damages on three surviving theories: (1) statutory liability pursuant to 7 M.R.S. § 3961(1) (2011); 2 (2) common law strict liability; and (3) negligence.”

Vigliotta v. Ditomasso (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “Compare 7 M.R.S. § 3961 (1991) with 7 M.R.S. § 3961 (2011).”

Delgreco v. Bangor Humane Soc'y (Me. Super. Ct 2023). “Plaintiff's Personal Injury Claims Maine recognizes three separate legal theories under which a plaintiff who has suffered damages from a dog bite may obtain relief: common law strict liability, common law negligence, and statutory liability under 7 M.”

Ramsay v. Dube (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “Plaintiff alleges three causes of action: count I, common law strict liability; 1 count II, negligence; and count III, statutory liability pursuant to 7 M.R.S. § 3961. On March 23, 2017, defendant Bryant filed an answer.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 3961(2) — 4 cases

Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017). “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Richardie Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 2017 ME 166 (Me. 2017). “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017). “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

Kelley v. North East Ins. Co., 168 A.3d 779 (Me. 2017). “The court concluded that the damages awarded to Kelley in the underlying action, see 7 M.R.S. § 3961(2) (2016), were based on a claim that was not covered by the North East automobile insurance policy.”

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.