Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.288 (2026)

Common law liability.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

DOG LAW OF 1919

Act 339 of 1919

287.288 Common law liability.

Sec. 28.

Nothing in this act contained shall be construed as limiting the common law liability of the owner of a dog for damages committed by it.

History: 1919, Act 339, Eff. Aug. 14, 1919 ;-- CL 1929, 5273 ;-- CL 1948, 287.288

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1974–2006 · leading case: Hiner v. Mojica, 722 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hiner v. Mojica, 722 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” MCL 287.288. Michigan has long recognized a strict-liability cause of action against possessors of certain domestic animals for harm caused by those animals, regardless of fault.”

Feister v. Bosack, 497 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “544 and MCL 287.288; MSA 12.539. Only one published Michigan case has examined a landlord's liability for injuries inflicted by a tenant's dog.”

Nicholes v. Lorenz, 237 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 1976). “See 1929 CL 5273 which is now found at MCLA 287.288; MSA 12.539. Although the dog-bite statute 1 and the common law can be employed in alternative counts, 2 such is not the case before us.”

Thelen v. Thelen, 435 N.W.2d 495 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “Counts n through v alleged defendants’ negligence and common-law liability for dog bites under Michigan’s Dog Law of 1919, MCL 287.288; MSA 12.539. Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.”

Trager v. Thor, 501 N.W.2d 251 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). “MCL 287.288; MSA 12.539. In 1929, the Legislature repealed 1915 CL 7270, the dog-bite statute then in existence.”

Veal v. Spencer, 220 N.W.2d 158 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “544 and the common-law right of action preserved under MCLA 287.288; MSA 12.539. At the conclusion of plaintiffs proofs the court directed a verdict under the statute in plaintiff’s favor as next friend, leaving the jury to determine damages.”

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.