Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 155 (2026)

Liability for damage caused by dog; minors; presumption and burden of proof

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 155. If any dog shall do any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or if the owner or keeper be a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an action under this section is brought, is under seven years of age at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the defendant in such action.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1925–2024 · leading case: Audette v. Commonwealth, 829 N.E.2d 248 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Audette v. Commonwealth, 829 N.E.2d 248 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 5× “We disagree with regard to § 10(j), but on review of all of the summary judgment materials, we conclude that G. L. c. 140, § 155, providing strict liability for dog bites, is inapplicable, and that under the common-law theory of liability, as there was no evidence that the dog’s…”

Krasnecky v. Meffen, 777 N.E.2d 1286 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “Count 1 seeks damages for violation of G. L. c. 140, § 155. 3 Count 2 claims strict liability under the common law and asks for damages for emotional distress and permanent loss of the sheep, including loss of their companionship and society.”

Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 SD 10 (S.D. 2001). · cites it 2× “Ann. § 16.08.040 (West 1992). Our legislature has already imposed strict liability on dog owners for damages inflicted upon "poultry or domestic animal[s].”

Barrett v. Rodgers, 562 N.E.2d 480 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff then commenced this action in Superior Court under G. L. c. 140, § 155 (1988 ed.), 1 seeking damages for physical and mental injuries, disfigurement, medical expenses, loss of compensation, and interference with her enjoyment of life.”

Irwin v. Degtiarov, 8 N.E.3d 296 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs sued 4 under G. L. c. 140, § 155, as amended by St. 1934, c.”

Michael a. David v. Jonathan P. Kelly & Another., 100 Mass. App. Ct. 443 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021). “G. L. c. 140, § 155. The contested issue at trial was causation -- whether the full extent of David's wrist injury was in fact caused Page 446 by a dog bite or something else.”

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of Representatives, 147 N.E. 681 (Mass. 1925). “G. L. c. 140, § 155. Galvin v. Parker, 154 Mass.”

Malchanoff v. Truehart, 236 N.E.2d 89 (Mass. 1968). · cites it 2× “In one, the female plaintiff (plaintiff), by her next friend, seeks to recover under G. L. c. 140, § 155, as appearing in St. 1934, c.”

Salisbury v. Ferioli, 730 N.E.2d 373 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff, Laura Perillo, complained of the defendant, Ella Cameron, dog owner, under the familiar strict-liability dog statute, G. L. c. 140, § 155; she also sought recovery against Cameron’s insurer, Providence Washington Insurance Company, under G.”

Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. Christman, 2014 VT 55 (Vt. 2014). “Code §3342 (2014); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 155 (2014); Wash.”

Am. Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Lynn, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass. 1989). “” Unlike an ordinance which generally prohibits the keeping of a “vicious dog,” enforcement of which involves questions of fact whether the particular dog is vicious or known by its owner to be vicious, 10 or a strict liability restraint or dog bite law, such as G. L. c. 140, §…”

Brown v. Bolduc, 556 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990). “Upon trial, Gail had a verdict and judgment against Sonia on the basis of the dogbite statute, G. L. c. 140, § 155, as amended by St. 1968, c.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

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.