Introduction

There are three alternative theories of liability for dog bites recognized in Michigan:

1. Common law, based upon negligence. See MCL 287.288; Grummel v Decker, 294 Mich 71 (1940); Knowles v Mulder, 74 Mich 202 (1889).

2. Common law, based on strict liability. Trager v Thor, 445 Mich 95 (1994); Hiner v Mojica, 271 Mich App ___ (2006).

3. Statutory, imposing strict liability upon the owner. See MCL 287.351; Nicholes v Lorenz, 396 Mich 53 (1976); Cox v Hayes, 34 Mich App 527 (1971); Hill v Sacka, 256 Mich App 443 (2003).

Provocation is the only defense to an action maintained under the dog bite statute. Comparative negligence principles and MCL 600.2959 are not applicable. MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304, concerning allocation of fault, also do not apply. Hill, supra.