BlogLine

Beware of dog bite liability: Kentucky property owners can be bitten in more than one way 

7/22/25

By: Lucas Ryan Harrison

In a unanimous opinion issued earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Kentucky clarified that strict liability under Kentucky statutory law is not the only avenue to hold property owners responsible for injuries from dog bites. In Deramos v. Anderson Communities, Inc., the Court held that property owners can be liable for any negligence relating to a dog bite incident in addition to the potential strict liability under Kentucky law. 709 S.W.3d 197 (Ky. 2025).  

Kimberly Deramos and Princess, her Shih Tzu, were returning to Ms. Deramos’ apartment after a walk when they were attacked by a pit bull allegedly owned by a neighbor in the complex. Ms. Deramos sued the apartment complex, alleging it failed to maintain a safe environment. Anderson Communities filed a motion to dismiss, relying on Kentucky’s strict liability dog-bite rule under KRS 258.235(4). The motion was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Both courts held that Anderson Communities was not an “owner” of the pit bull under Kentucky law (which requires that one must own and occupy the premises to be considered a statutory dog owner), and therefore, the apartment complex could not be held strictly liable for Ms. Deramos’ damages caused by the dog. 

Kentucky’s highest Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions based upon the theory of liability asserted in the complaint. Ms. Deramos did not assert a strict liability claim against Anderson Communities. Instead, she alleged Anderson Communities was negligent in maintaining a safe environment in a common area. At the trial court, Anderson Communities’ motion to dismiss was granted based upon the belief that Kentucky statutory dog-bite law had completely displaced and abrogated common law liability for property owners. However, the Supreme Court clarified that KRS 258.235 and KRS 258.095 only partly modified the common law, and the statutes do not operate to displace all potential common law liability against property owners for dog bites arising from negligence. The Court noted that pit bulls were on a restricted breeds list and that tenants were required to disclose the breed of dog they intend to keep on the premises, indicating potential avenues for negligence to be proven against the apartment complex. 

This opinion confirmed that ownership of the dog at issue is not determinative to establish potential liability for property owners in dog-bite cases. Kentucky property owners can be liable for their negligence in the circumstances surrounding a dog bite, whether they own the dog in fact, by law or not at all. For more information, please contact Lucas Ryan Harrison at lucas.harrison@fmglaw.com or your FMG relationship partner. 

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.