Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351 (2026)

Person bitten by dog; liability of owner.

✓ current as of July 2026

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

LIABILITY OF OWNER FOR DOG BITE

Act 73 of 1939

287.351 Person bitten by dog; liability of owner.

Sec. 1.

(1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

(2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner's property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or if the person is on the owner's property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.

History: 1939, Act 73, Imd. Eff. May 4, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 287.351 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 142, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 625 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 625 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 20× “§ 287.351; MSA 12.544. Specifically, plaintiff contends that provocation under the statute refers to intentional acts of provocation only, not to unintentional acts.”

Carolyn Sue Kelsey v. Nita Lint, 912 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “Following this incident, plaintiffs filed the current lawsuit alleging (1) a statutory dog-bite claim under MCL 287.351, (2) a common-law dog-bite claim premised on the assertion that Lint knew of the dog's violent propensities and acted negligently by failing to properly…”

Hill v. Sacka, 666 N.W.2d 282 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “The focus of this appeal concerns whether an action pursuant to Michigan’s dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351, is subject to principles regarding allocation of fault under MCL 600.”

Tate v. City of Grand Rapids, 671 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “MCL 287.351, the dog-bite statute, provides: (1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by…”

Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (NY 2004). · cites it 2× “28; Mich Comp Laws Ann § 287.351; Minn Stat Ann § 347.”

Taylor v. Mobley, 760 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Michigan's dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351, provides, in part: (1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable…”

Koivisto v. Davis, 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff Kathy Koivisto appeals by leave granted the summary dismissal of her claim of statutory liability under Michigan’s dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351. We reverse. Defendants Ronald and Rebecca Macak owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels.”

Koivisto v. Davis, 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff Kathy Koivisto appeals by leave granted the summary dismissal of her claim of statutory liability under Michigan's dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351. We reverse. Defendants Ronald and Rebecca Macak owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels.”

Feister v. Bosack, 497 N.W.2d 522 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff sued both Bosack and Runyon, alleging strict liability against Bosack under the dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351; MSA 12.544, and common-law negligence against Runyon.”

Elois Dunigan v. Scott Noble, Pub. Saf. Officer, & Percy Jenkins, Pub. Saf. Officer, Jointly & Severally, 390 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2005). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351 . The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim.”

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

Hiner v. Mojica, 722 N.W.2d 914 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “2 Plaintiff also asserted a claim of statutory liability under Michigan’s dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351. The trial court granted summary disposition of the statutory dog-bite claim pursuant to MCR 2.”

Show all 56 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351(1) — 19 cases

Carolyn Sue Kelsey v. Nita Lint, 912 N.W.2d 862 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “Following this incident, plaintiffs filed the current lawsuit alleging (1) a statutory dog-bite claim under MCL 287.351, (2) a common-law dog-bite claim premised on the assertion that Lint knew of the dog's violent propensities and acted negligently by failing to properly…”

Koivisto v. Davis, 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiff Kathy Koivisto appeals by leave granted the summary dismissal of her claim of statutory liability under Michigan’s dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351. We reverse. Defendants Ronald and Rebecca Macak owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels.”

Taylor v. Mobley, 760 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “NOTES [1] Michigan's dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351, provides, in part: (1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable…”

Koivisto v. Davis, 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Plaintiff Kathy Koivisto appeals by leave granted the summary dismissal of her claim of statutory liability under Michigan's dog-bite statute, MCL 287.351. We reverse. Defendants Ronald and Rebecca Macak owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels.”

People v. Janes, 836 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351(2) — 3 cases

Carolyn Sue Kelsey v. Nita Lint (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Theresa Puninske v. David M Goldsmith (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 287.351(a) — 1 case

Est. of Luke Taylor v. Misty Rouse (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

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.