Wash. Rev. Code » Title 16 · Chapter 16.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.090 (2026)

Dangerous dogs—Requirements for restraint—Potentially dangerous dogs—Dogs not declared dangerous

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.
(2) Potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal, and county ordinances. Nothing in this section limits restrictions local jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs.
(3) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a wilful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been observed or reported to have tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
[ 1987 c 94 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—1987 c 94: See note following RCW 16.08.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 5× “RCW 16.08.090(1). The state statutes provide for criminal penalties in connection with ownership of “dangerous” dogs.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 5× “RCW 16.08.090(1). The state statutes provide for criminal penalties in connection with ownership of "dangerous" dogs.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 3× “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
Mansour v. King Cnty., 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “" It charged that Maxine was also in violation of RCW 16.08.090 "in that she has bitten, attacked or otherwise threatened the safety of a human being or domestic animal either on public or private property without provocation.”
Mansour v. King Cnty., 131 Wash. App. 255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “” Animal Control notified Mansour that “[a]nimals declared in violation of RCW 16.08.090 and/or King County Code 11.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 932 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “080(4), which provides that cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 4× “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
Melissa C. Williams v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “RCW 16.08.090(1). In Rabon, an owner whose dogs had been ordered destroyed challenged Seattle’s “vicious dog” ordinance, 7 arguing it irreconcilably conflicted with state statute and was unconstitutional under article XI, section 11.”
Judith Cruz, V. Jeremy Jon Cheung (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Nowhere does this statute, or any other, further provide that dog owners are exclusively liable for such injuries, or otherwise shield any other party from liability 2 And it is true that RCW 16.08.090(1) provides in pertinent part that it “is unlawful for an owner of a…”
Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation, V. Ezra L. Eddines, 553 P.3d 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The court focused on RCW 16.08.090(2), which provided that only local authorities had power to regulate “potentially dangerous” dogs.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 932 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “080(4), which provides that cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.”
Clorrissa Estrella v. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Moreover, RCW 16.08.090(2) provides, "Potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal, and county ordinances.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.090(1) — 6 cases
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 16.08.090(1). The state statutes provide for criminal penalties in connection with ownership of “dangerous” dogs.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 16.08.090(1). The state statutes provide for criminal penalties in connection with ownership of "dangerous" dogs.”
Judith Cruz, V. Jeremy Jon Cheung (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “” Nowhere does this statute, or any other, further provide that dog owners are exclusively liable for such injuries, or otherwise shield any other party from liability 2 And it is true that RCW 16.08.090(1) provides in pertinent part that it “is unlawful for an owner of a…”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.090(2) — 9 cases
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 135 Wash. 2d 278 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 16.08.090(1). The state statutes provide for criminal penalties in connection with ownership of “dangerous” dogs.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 957 P.2d 621 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 16.08.090(1). The state statutes provide for criminal penalties in connection with ownership of "dangerous" dogs.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
Rabon v. City of Seattle, 932 P.2d 646 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “080(4), which provides that cities and counties may charge an annual fee, in addition to regular dog licensing fees, to register dangerous dogs.”
Melissa C. Williams v. City Of Seattle (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 16.08.090(1). In Rabon, an owner whose dogs had been ordered destroyed challenged Seattle’s “vicious dog” ordinance, 7 arguing it irreconcilably conflicted with state statute and was unconstitutional under article XI, section 11.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 16.08.090(3) — 2 cases
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
State v. Bash, 925 P.2d 978 (Wash. 1996). “A dangerous dog must be properly restrained and muzzled in accordance with RCW 16.08.090(1) when outside its enclosure.”
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.