Health & Safety Code § 822.005 – Attack by Dog

Health & Safety Code § 822.005 Summary

This Texas law outlines specific criminal offenses for dog owners whose animals attack other people, resulting in serious bodily injury or death. The statute details two primary scenarios under which an owner can be charged. The first involves an owner’s criminal negligence in failing to secure their dog, leading to an unprovoked attack off their property or vehicle that causes significant harm or fatality. The second scenario applies when an owner already knows their dog is classified as “dangerous” (as defined by other sections of the law) and the animal then makes an unprovoked attack outside of a legally required secure enclosure, also causing serious injury or death. Depending on the outcome of the attack, the offense is categorized as a felony, potentially leading to the dog’s destruction.

Purpose of Health & Safety Code § 822.005 Purpose

This statute exists to establish criminal liability for irresponsible dog ownership in Texas, particularly when such negligence or disregard for a known dangerous animal results in severe harm or death to innocent individuals. The legislative intent behind this specific law is to protect the public from dangerous dog attacks by holding owners accountable for failing to properly secure their dogs or for not adequately controlling known dangerous animals. It addresses the serious public safety problem posed by uncontrolled dogs, aiming to deter negligent behavior and encourage responsible pet ownership, thereby preventing tragic incidents. By classifying such actions as felonies, Texas emphasizes the gravity of an owner’s responsibility and the potential consequences for both the owner and the animal involved in a severe attack.

Real-World Example of Health & Safety Code § 822.005 Real-World Example

Imagine a scenario in a quiet suburban neighborhood. Mr. Smith owns a large, aggressive dog. Despite multiple warnings from neighbors about the dog’s tendency to bark aggressively at passersby and sometimes slip its leash, Mr. Smith often leaves his backyard gate slightly ajar. One afternoon, the dog escapes through the unsecured gate. It then runs down the street and, without any provocation, viciously attacks a jogger, Ms. Johnson, who is on the public sidewalk. The attack leaves Ms. Johnson with severe lacerations, broken bones, and permanent disfigurement, qualifying as “serious bodily injury.”

In this instance, Mr. Smith could be charged under Health & Safety Code § 822.005(a)(1). His repeated failure to ensure his gate was properly closed, despite knowing his dog’s temperament and history of escaping, could be interpreted as criminal negligence. The attack occurred off his property, was unprovoked, and resulted in serious bodily injury to Ms. Johnson. Should the court find him guilty, he could face a third-degree felony charge, and the court might also order his dog to be humanely destroyed.

Related Statutes

Several other Texas statutes are directly related to Health & Safety Code § 822.005, providing definitions, additional context, or related provisions:

• Health & Safety Code § 822.042(g) – Dangerous Dog Determination: This section is explicitly referenced within § 822.005(a)(2) for defining how an owner *knows* their dog is dangerous. It outlines the process by which a dog can be legally declared dangerous, often involving an unprovoked attack causing injury.
• Health & Safety Code § 822.001 – Definitions (Serious Bodily Injury): While § 822.005(a)(1) references the Penal Code for “serious bodily injury,” § 822.005(a)(2) specifically references § 822.001 for this definition in the context of a known dangerous dog. This highlights the importance of precise legal definitions within the code.
• Health & Safety Code § 822.004 – Destruction of Dog: This section is referenced in § 822.005(c), which allows the court to order the dog’s destruction. Section 822.004 specifies who may carry out such an order.
• Penal Code § 6.03 – Definitions (Criminal Negligence): Referenced in § 822.005(a)(1), this section defines “criminal negligence” as a person’s failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct will cause a particular result. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances.
• Penal Code § 1.07 – Definitions (Serious Bodily Injury): Referenced in § 822.005(a)(1), this section defines “serious bodily injury” as bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
• Subchapter D of Chapter 822 (Dangerous Dogs): This entire subchapter (e.g., §§ 822.041-822.047) details the requirements for owners of dangerous dogs, including registration, secure enclosures, liability insurance, and other restrictions. These regulations are crucial context for understanding the “secure enclosure” requirement in § 822.005(a)(2).

Case Law Interpreting Health & Safety Code § 822.005 Case Law

Several appellate court cases in Texas have interpreted various elements of Health & Safety Code § 822.005, providing clarity on its application:

• State v. Sanchez, 280 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. ref’d): This case extensively discusses the elements of an offense under H&S Code § 822.005(a)(1). Specifically, it addressed the definition of “owner” and what constitutes a “failure to secure the dog” in the context of criminal negligence. The court examined whether a temporary caretaker could be considered an “owner” for the purpose of the statute and clarified the scope of an owner’s duty to secure their animal. The case emphasized that the “owner” refers to the person who harbors or has care, custody, or control of the dog. For a detailed review, you can find the search results for this case here.

• State v. Malone, No. 10-09-00109-CR, 2010 WL 3835698 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 29, 2010, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication): This unpublished opinion further analyzed the elements required for a conviction under § 822.005, specifically focusing on the meaning of an “unprovoked attack” and “serious bodily injury.” It reinforced that the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt, including the specific nature of the injuries. For more information, the search results are available here.

• Moreno v. State, No. 04-18-00511-CR, 2019 WL 4138676 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 30, 2019, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication): In this unpublished case, the court examined the evidence supporting a finding of “criminal negligence” and “serious bodily injury” in an appeal of a conviction under § 822.005. It provides insight into the type of evidence courts consider sufficient to establish these elements. You can find the search results for this case here.

Why Health & Safety Code § 822.005 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

While Health & Safety Code § 822.005 is a *criminal* statute, its implications are profoundly significant in Texas personal injury litigation stemming from dog attacks. For victims of severe dog bites, this law can be a powerful tool or influence in their civil claims.

1. Establishing Negligence or Liability: A criminal conviction under § 822.005 for a dog owner provides strong evidence, and potentially even *prima facie* (at first sight) proof, of negligence in a parallel civil personal injury lawsuit. If a court has already determined an owner was criminally negligent or knew their dog was dangerous, it significantly strengthens the plaintiff’s argument for civil liability.
2. Increased Leverage for Plaintiffs: The threat or existence of criminal charges under this felony statute can pressure dog owners and their insurance companies to settle civil claims more favorably. Facing both criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit, owners may be more inclined to resolve the civil matter to reduce their overall legal exposure and costs.
3. Demonstrating Severity of Conduct: This statute helps personal injury attorneys demonstrate the extreme carelessness or recklessness of the dog owner’s actions. The fact that the State of Texas considers such conduct a felony underscores the severe impact of the attack and the owner’s culpability.
4. Punitive Damages: Evidence of an owner’s criminal negligence, as defined and proven under § 822.005, can be critical in arguing for punitive damages in a civil case. Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate the victim but to punish the defendant for egregious conduct and deter similar behavior in the future. A criminal conviction provides compelling evidence of such conduct.
5. Understanding “Dangerous Dog” Status: The statute’s reference to a “dangerous dog” and the requirements for a “secure enclosure” (Subchapter D) provides a framework that personal injury lawyers can use. If a dog was previously declared dangerous, or if the owner failed to meet the secure enclosure requirements, these facts become crucial evidence of a breach of duty in a civil claim.

For both plaintiffs and defense attorneys in Texas dog bite cases, understanding Health & Safety Code § 822.005 is essential. It provides a benchmark for severe owner responsibility and neglect, influencing settlement negotiations, trial strategies, and ultimately, the outcomes of personal injury lawsuits.