Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 174 — DOGS
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (2026)

Owner’s liability for damage caused by dog; penalties; court order to kill a dog

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
174.02174.02 Owner’s liability for damage caused by dog; penalties; court order to kill a dog.
174.02(1)(1) Liability for injury.
174.02(1)(a)(a) Without notice. Subject to s. 895.045 and except as provided in s. 895.57 (4), the owner of a dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic animal or property.
174.02(1)(b)(b) After notice. Subject to s. 895.045 and except as provided in s. 895.57 (4), the owner of a dog is liable for 2 times the full amount of damages caused by the dog biting a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement if the owner was notified or knew that the dog had previously, without provocation, bitten a person with sufficient force to break the skin and cause permanent physical scarring or disfigurement.
174.02(2)(2) Penalties imposed on owner of dog causing damage.
174.02(2)(a)(a) Without notice. The owner of a dog shall forfeit not less than $50 nor more than $2,500 if the dog injures or causes injury to a person, domestic animal, property, deer, game birds or the nests or eggs of game birds.
174.02(2)(b)(b) After notice. The owner of a dog shall forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $5,000 if the dog injures or causes injury to a person, domestic animal, property, deer, game birds or the nests or eggs of game birds, and if the owner was notified or knew that the dog previously injured or caused injury to a person, domestic animal, property, deer, game birds or the nests or eggs of game birds.
174.02(2)(c)(c) Penalties in addition to liability for damages. The penalties in this subsection are in addition to any other liability imposed on the owner of a dog.
174.02(3)(3) Court order to kill a dog.
174.02(3)(a)(a) The state, any municipality, or a person who is injured by the dog, whose minor child was injured by the dog, or whose domestic animal is injured by the dog may commence a civil action to obtain a judgment from a court ordering an officer to kill a dog. The court may grant the judgment if the court finds both of the following:
Down
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
 View toggle
 Go to top of document
Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Search in this agency
 Search in this chapter group
 Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Cross references for section
 Acts affecting this section
 References to this
 1970 Statutes Annotations
 Appellate Court Citations
 Administrative Code Index
Reference lines
 Clear highlighting
174.02(3)(a)1.1. The dog caused serious injury to a person or domestic animal on 2 separate occasions off the owner’s property, without reasonable cause.
174.02(3)(a)2.2. The owner of the dog was notified or knew prior to the 2nd injury, that the dog caused the first injury.
174.02(3)(b)(b) Any officer enforcing a judgment under this subsection shall kill a dog in a proper and humane manner.
174.02(4)(4) Law enforcement dogs.
174.02(4)(a)(a) In this subsection, “law enforcement agency” has the meaning given in s. 165.83 (1) (b).
174.02(4)(b)(b) The owner of a dog that is used by a law enforcement agency is not liable under sub. (1) for damages caused by the dog to a crime suspect while the dog is performing law enforcement functions.
174.02(4)(c)(c) Subsection (2) does not apply to the owner of a dog that is used by a law enforcement agency if the dog injures a crime suspect while the dog is performing law enforcement functions.
174.02(4)(d)(d) Subsection (3) does not apply to a dog that is used by a law enforcement agency if the dog injures a crime suspect while the dog is performing law enforcement functions.
174.02 HistoryHistory: 1981 c. 285; 1983 a. 451; 1985 a. 92; 1993 a. 154; 1995 a. 181; 1997 a. 141; 1999 a. 45; 2015 a. 112.
174.02 AnnotationPublic policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for statutorily imposed multiple damages. Cieslewicz v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co. 84 Wis. 2d 91, 267 N.W.2d 595 (1978).
174.02 AnnotationDoubling of damages under s. 174.02 (1) (b) operates only after application of the laws of comparative negligence. Sprague v. Sprague, 132 Wis. 2d 68, 389 N.W.2d 823 (Ct. App. 1986).
174.02 AnnotationTo be a “keeper” of a dog within the definition of “owner” under this statute, the person must exercise some measure of custody, care, or control. An “owner” injured while in control of the dog may not use the statute to hold another owner liable. Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance Co. 202 Wis. 2d 258, 549 N.W.2d 723 (1996), 93-1918.
174.02 AnnotationA landlord does not become a harborer of a tenant’s dog by merely permitting the tenant to keep the dog. Malone v. Fons, 217 Wis. 2d 746, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-3326.
174.02 AnnotationArmstrong has no application when one who is neither an owner or keeper of the dog is injured. Sub. (1) imposes strict liability on an owner when the person injured is neither the dog’s owner or keeper. Fifer v. Dix, 2000 WI App 66, 234 Wis. 2d 117, 608 N.W.2d 740, 99-1717.
174.02 AnnotationAn owner may sue a keeper for contribution when an innocent 3rd-party has been injured. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, 2000 WI App 82, 234 Wis. 2d 314, 610 N.W.2d 98, 99-1094.
174.02 AnnotationA keeper of a dog may not recover under this section, notwithstanding an allegation that the actual owner was negligent. While the keeper may pursue a common law negligence claim, sub. (1) (b) and its provision of double damages are not applicable to that action. Malik v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 2001 WI App 82, 243 Wis. 2d 27, 625 N.W.2d 640, 00-1129.
174.02 AnnotationA dog owner does not have notice under sub. (1) (b) because the owner knows that the dog as a puppy chewed on household items in the course of normal teething behavior. Gasper v. Parbs, 2001 WI App 259, 249 Wis. 2d 106, 637 N.W.2d 399, 00-2476.
174.02 AnnotationCourts may utilize the traditional 6 public policy factors, formerly referred to as proximate cause, to limit liability in appropriate cases under this section. Fandrey v. American Family, 2004 WI 62, 272 Wis. 2d 46, 680 N.W.2d 345, 02-2628.
174.02 AnnotationPublic policy does not preclude a police officer from suing for injuries received because of a dog attack that occurred during the course of the officer’s duties. Cole v. Hubanks, 2004 WI 74, 272 Wis. 2d 539, 681 N.W.2d 147, 02-1416.
174.02 AnnotationUnder s. 174.001 (5), “owner” includes anyone who keeps or harbors a dog. The concepts of “harbor” and “keep” are similar, and the liability of one who harbors a dog and one who keeps a dog is the same. When a homeowner has become a statutory owner by virtue of the dog’s living in her residence for several months, that status does not vary on a minute-to-minute basis, depending on which person controls the dog. The homeowner’s status as a harborer of the dog is not extinguished when the dog’s legal owner takes momentary control of the dog. Pawlowski v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. 2009 WI 105, 322 Wis. 2d 21, 777 N.W.2d 67, 07-2651.
174.02 AnnotationMere ownership of the property on which a dog resides is not sufficient to establish that an individual is an owner of a dog under this section. The totality of the circumstances determines whether the legal owner of the property has exercised the requisite control over the property to be considered a harborer and thus an owner under the statute. Augsburger v. Homestead Mutual Insurance Company, 2014 WI 133, 359 Wis. 2d 385, 856 N.W.2d 874, 12-0641.
174.02 AnnotationRecent changes in the statutory liability of Wisconsin dog owners: How expensive is fido? Eiche. WBB April 1984.
174.02 AnnotationUnleashed: Wisconsin’s Dog Statute. Mullaney. Wis. Law. June 2006.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1926–2026 · leading case: Fandrey v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 2004 WI 62 (Wis. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fandrey v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 2004 WI 62 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 90× “First, the court of appeals has asked us to determine whether a court may use traditional public policy factors [1] to limit liability under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (1999-2000), [2] commonly known as the "dog bite statute," when liability under the statute is otherwise established.”
Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 73× “Seefeldt was not a "keeper" of a dog, that is, that she was not a statutory owner of the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (2007-08) 2 at the time of the dog bite incident.”
Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 133 (Wis. 2014). · cites it 83× “¶3 We conclude that mere ownership of the property on which a dog resides is not sufficient to establish that an individual is an owner of a dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (2011- 12).2 Rather, the totality of the circumstances determines whether the legal owner of the property…”
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 56× “The Malones's original complaint named only Garner, the owner of the dog, as a defendant. Later, the complaint was amended twice to include Fons, and his insurer, as defendants.”
Smaxwell v. Bayard, 2004 WI 101 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 20× “The plaintiff sued the homeowner, alleging strict liability under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 and common-law negligence.”
Armstrong v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins., 549 N.W.2d 723 (Wis. 1996). · cites it 42× “[1] We further hold that, in a case such as this where a keeper is injured by the dog and there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the legal owners, a keeper may not recover damages from the legal owners of the dog under the strict liability statute, Wis. Stat. § 174.02…”
Cole v. Hubanks, 2004 WI 74 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 24× “Cole brought suit against Aubrey and Yvonne Hubanks, the owners of the dog, and their insurance company, American Family, alleging that the Hubanks: (1) negligently cared for and restrained the dog; (2) harbored a dangerous animal; (3) failed to warn the public of the dangerous…”
Gasper Ex Rel. Martin v. Parbs, 2001 WI App 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 23× “Monika relied on Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (l)(b) (1991-92), 1 a statute imposing double damages on dog owners who have notice that their dog has previously "injured or caused injury to a person, livestock or property.”
Fifer v. Dix, 2000 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 33× “1 *120 Fifer alleged in his complaint that Dix is strictly liable under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (1997-98) 2 for injuries Fifer incurred when he was bitten by Dix's dog, and alternatively, that the dog-bite injuries resulted from Dix's negligence.”
Malik v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 26× “Malik's complaint alleged the Hermans were negligent in various ways, that under *32 Wis. Stat. § 174.02 they were strictly liable to her for double her damages, and that their homeowners policy covered their liability.”
Est. of Stanley G. Miller v. Diane Storey, 2017 WI 99 (Wis. 2017). · cites it 4× “2d 345 (recognizing "that § 174.02 [strict liability dog-bite statute] is a codified tort action" and further explaining that "the fact that liability in this case is predicated upon a statute rather than a common-law cause of action is not dispositive, as § 174.”
Becker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 416 N.W.2d 906 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “Becker also contends that the state "injury by dog” statute then in existence, sec. 174.02, Stats. (1983-84), established strict liability subject only to the defense of comparative negligence.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1) — 14 cases
Fandrey v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 2004 WI 62 (Wis. 2004). “First, the court of appeals has asked us to determine whether a court may use traditional public policy factors [1] to limit liability under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (1999-2000), [2] commonly known as the "dog bite statute," when liability under the statute is otherwise established.”
Fifer v. Dix, 2000 WI App 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “1 *120 Fifer alleged in his complaint that Dix is strictly liable under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (1997-98) 2 for injuries Fifer incurred when he was bitten by Dix's dog, and alternatively, that the dog-bite injuries resulted from Dix's negligence.”
Julie A. Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 WI 133 (Wis. 2014). “¶3 We conclude that mere ownership of the property on which a dog resides is not sufficient to establish that an individual is an owner of a dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (2011- 12).2 Rather, the totality of the circumstances determines whether the legal owner of the property…”
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The Malones's original complaint named only Garner, the owner of the dog, as a defendant. Later, the complaint was amended twice to include Fons, and his insurer, as defendants.”
Meunier v. Ogurek, 412 N.W.2d 155 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(a) — 6 cases
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The Malones's original complaint named only Garner, the owner of the dog, as a defendant. Later, the complaint was amended twice to include Fons, and his insurer, as defendants.”
Cole v. Hubanks, 2004 WI 74 (Wis. 2004). “Cole brought suit against Aubrey and Yvonne Hubanks, the owners of the dog, and their insurance company, American Family, alleging that the Hubanks: (1) negligently cared for and restrained the dog; (2) harbored a dangerous animal; (3) failed to warn the public of the dangerous…”
Lewellin Ex Rel. Heirs of Lewellin v. Huber, 465 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 1991).
Alwin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2000 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
Jeffrey M. Polfuss v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.02(1)(b) — 6 cases
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The Malones's original complaint named only Garner, the owner of the dog, as a defendant. Later, the complaint was amended twice to include Fons, and his insurer, as defendants.”
Dostal Ex Rel. Schmidt v. Millers Nat'l Ins., 404 N.W.2d 90 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
Campenni v. Walrath, 493 N.W.2d 266 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
Kelly v. Berg, 925 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. Ct. App. 2018).
Campenni v. Walrath, 509 N.W.2d 725 (Wis. 1994).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.02(3) — 2 cases
Turner v. City of Milwaukee, 535 N.W.2d 15 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Bodoh, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.02(l)(a) — 8 cases
Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105 (Wis. 2009). “Seefeldt was not a "keeper" of a dog, that is, that she was not a statutory owner of the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (2007-08) 2 at the time of the dog bite incident.”
Cole v. Hubanks, 2004 WI 74 (Wis. 2004). “Cole brought suit against Aubrey and Yvonne Hubanks, the owners of the dog, and their insurance company, American Family, alleging that the Hubanks: (1) negligently cared for and restrained the dog; (2) harbored a dangerous animal; (3) failed to warn the public of the dangerous…”
Malik v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Malik's complaint alleged the Hermans were negligent in various ways, that under *32 Wis. Stat. § 174.02 they were strictly liable to her for double her damages, and that their homeowners policy covered their liability.”
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The Malones's original complaint named only Garner, the owner of the dog, as a defendant. Later, the complaint was amended twice to include Fons, and his insurer, as defendants.”
Alwin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2000 WI App 92 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wis. Stat. § 174.02(l)(b) — 9 cases
Malik v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2001 WI App 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Malik's complaint alleged the Hermans were negligent in various ways, that under *32 Wis. Stat. § 174.02 they were strictly liable to her for double her damages, and that their homeowners policy covered their liability.”
Malone Ex Rel. Bangert v. Fons, 580 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “The Malones's original complaint named only Garner, the owner of the dog, as a defendant. Later, the complaint was amended twice to include Fons, and his insurer, as defendants.”
Gasper Ex Rel. Martin v. Parbs, 2001 WI App 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “Monika relied on Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (l)(b) (1991-92), 1 a statute imposing double damages on dog owners who have notice that their dog has previously "injured or caused injury to a person, livestock or property.”
Pawlowski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 WI 105 (Wis. 2009). “Seefeldt was not a "keeper" of a dog, that is, that she was not a statutory owner of the dog under Wis. Stat. § 174.02 (2007-08) 2 at the time of the dog bite incident.”
Sprague Ex Rel. Van Remmen v. Sprague, 389 N.W.2d 823 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).
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.