Maryland Dog Bite Law After the Pit Bull Fight: The 2014 Statute Explained
Dog attacks are among the most emotionally charged injury cases we see. The victims are disproportionately children; the injuries — facial scarring, nerve damage, infection, lasting fear of animals — are often permanent; and the defendant is frequently a neighbor, relative, or friend, which makes families hesitant to pursue what is almost always, in reality, a homeowner's insurance claim.
Maryland's rules for these cases went through a legal earthquake a few years ago, and many people — including some lawyers — still misunderstand where the law landed. Here is the story, and the current rules.
Act One: Tracey v. Solesky and the pit bull rule
In April 2012, in Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627 (2012), Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, decided a case arising from a savage pit bull attack on a young boy. The court did something dramatic: it declared pit bulls inherently dangerous as a breed and imposed strict liability — liability without proof the particular dog had ever been aggressive — on pit bull owners, and even on landlords who knew a pit bull was kept on their property.
The backlash was immediate. Landlords across Maryland, fearing automatic liability, pressured tenants to give up their dogs or move. Shelters reported a surge of surrendered pit bulls. Animal welfare groups, landlords' associations, and dog owners all demanded a legislative fix — though they disagreed sharply on what it should be.
Act Two: the General Assembly's 2014 compromise
After two years of failed attempts, the legislature passed a compromise that took effect on April 8, 2014, codified at Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-1901. It has three key features:
1. It is breed-neutral. The pit-bull-specific rule of Tracey is gone. Every dog, of every breed, is subject to the same rules. 2. A rebuttable presumption against owners. In a suit against a dog's owner for personal injury or death caused by the dog, evidence that the dog caused the injury creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities. This flips the old common-law burden: instead of the victim having to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous (the so-called "one free bite" problem), the owner must now persuade the fact-finder that they neither knew nor should have known. 3. Strict liability for dogs running at large. An owner is liable for injury caused by their dog while it is running at large — off the owner's property and uncontrolled — unless the victim was trespassing, committing or attempting a crime, or provoking the dog. 4. Landlords and other non-owners go back to the old rules. For anyone who is not the dog's owner — most importantly landlords — the statute restores the common law as it existed before Tracey. A landlord is generally liable only under traditional negligence principles, such as knowingly allowing a dangerous dog to remain in a common area.
Before and after, at a glance
| Question | Under Tracey (2012–2014) | Under CJP § 3-1901 (April 2014–present) |
|---|---|---|
| Does breed matter? | Yes — strict liability for pit bulls only | No — breed-neutral |
| Must the victim prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous? | Not for pit bulls | No — knowledge is presumed; the owner must rebut it |
| Dog running loose off the property | General negligence rules | Strict liability, with trespass/crime/provocation exceptions |
| Landlord liability | Strict liability if landlord knew a pit bull was present | Pre-Tracey common law negligence rules |
What this means for injured people in Maryland
The 2014 statute made Maryland meaningfully friendlier to bite victims suing dog owners: the presumption of knowledge does real work, especially in cases where the dog's history is known only to the owner. But the details still matter enormously. Contributory negligence remains a complete defense in Maryland, so expect insurers to argue the victim provoked the dog or ignored warnings. Claims against landlords are harder than they were during the Tracey window. And because most dog bite recoveries are paid by homeowner's or renter's insurance, an early investigation into available coverage — and into the dog's history through animal control records and neighbors — often determines what the case is worth.
Dog attack claims also move fast in one respect: wounds heal and scars mature, so photographic documentation of injuries from day one through recovery is some of the most important evidence in the case.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.