Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 4, § 42.1 (2026)
Personal injury by dog - Liability of owner
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be. Added by Laws 1947, p. 32, § 1. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 75, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1980.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2024 · leading case: Hampton by & Through Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1987).
Hampton by & Through Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1987). “1, § 2(d); (2) violation of the state dog-bite statute, Title 4 O.S.1981 § 42.1; (8) common law negligence; and (4) attractive nuisance.”
Wishon v. Hammond, 2023 OK CIV APP 36 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022). “Negligence Per Se ¶10 Wishon's negligence per se theory invokes 4 O.S.2011 § 42.1: "The owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on…”
Hass v. Money, 849 P.2d 1106 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). “The trial court issued summary judgment to Appellees on the basis that there was no fact question on the issue of negligence of Appellees while the dog was in the exclusive care of Appellant.”
Nickell v. Sumner, 1997 OK 101 (Okla. 1997). “1 (the "dog-bite" statute), infra, may be imposed upon the owner of a dog that attacks a horse and causes the horse to buck the rider, who is then injured in the fall. We hold that § 42.3's rural-area exception does not protect the owner from liability in this case, but we…”
Waggoner v. Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc., 808 P.2d 649 (Okla. 1990). “Hood holds that the "dog bite statute," 4 O.S.1981 § 42.1, does not prevent a judgment's reversal for trial court's failure to instruct on common-law negligence.”
Hood v. Hagler, 606 P.2d 548 (Okla. 1979). “The suit brought by the Hoods was predicated upon both Oklahoma’s “dog bite” statute, 4 O.S.1971, §§ 42.1 and 42.2, and common law liability.”
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992). “Hood, supra holds that the "dog bite statute," 4 O.S.1981 § 42.1, does not prevent a judgment’s reversal for a trial court’s failure also to instruct on common-law negligence.”
Priebe v. Nelson, 140 P.3d 848 (Cal. 2006). “) Although Hass implicated the Oklahoma strict liability dog bite statute ( Okla. Stat. tit. 4, § 42.1 (1991)), it is inapposite here as it also turned on the wording of a local Oklahoma City "vicious dog ordinance" as well as the availability of a "provocation" defense that had…”
Wagoner v. Bennett, 814 P.2d 476 (Okla. 1991). “Hood holds that the "dog bite statute," 4 O.S.1981 § 42.1, does not prevent a judgment's reversal for trial court’s failure also to instruct on common-law negligence.”
Lewellin Ex Rel. Heirs of Lewellin v. Huber, 465 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1991). “[1] Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 4, § 42.1 (West 1990).”
Marshall v. City of Tulsa, 2024 OK 78 (2024). “Marshall sued City of Tulsa pursuant to the strict liability dog bite statute, 4 O.S. § 42.1 4 O.S. § 42.1 4 O.S. § 42.1 MATTER PREVIOUSLY RETAINED FOR DISPOSITION; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.”
Whitefield ex rel. Whitefield ex rel. Whitefield v. Stewart, 577 P.2d 1295 (Okla. 1978). “In 1947 our Legislature enacted a modified version of absolute liability for owners of dogs, 4 O.S.1971, § 42.1, which provides: “The owner or owners of any dog which shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person while such person is in or on a public place, or lawfully…”
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.