Texas Health & Safety Code § 822.045 – Defenses in Dog Bite and Dangerous Dog Proceedings
Table of Contents
Statutory Text:
It is a defense to prosecution under Section 822.044 or to a destruction order sought under that section that:
(1) the person is a veterinarian, a peace officer, a person employed by a recognized animal shelter, or a person employed by the state or a political subdivision to deal with stray animals and has temporary ownership, custody, or control of the dog in connection with that position;
(2) the person is an employee of a professional service licensed or regulated by the state and is treating the dog under the direction of a licensed veterinarian;
(3) the person is a dog trainer or an employee of a guard dog company under the Private Security Act and is temporarily training the dog in connection with that position;
(4) the dog was being used for the protection of a person or person’s property and:
(A) the attack occurred in a secure enclosure in which the dog was being kept; and
(B) the enclosure was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own and was marked as containing a dangerous dog; or(5) the person was trespassing on the property of the dog’s owner at the time of the incident.
What Does This Law Do?
This statute protects dog owners from automatic liability under § 822.044 (seizure/destruction) if certain conditions are met. These include occupational exceptions, lawful containment, and the victim’s conduct (e.g., trespassing or provoking the dog).
Example Scenario
A security company is training a guard dog in a fenced, marked enclosure. A teenager climbs the fence to retrieve a lost ball and is bitten. The company may assert a defense under § 822.045(3) and (5), as the bite occurred during lawful training and the teen was trespassing.
When This Law Applies
This law is used when:
A destruction order is sought in court under § 822.044
An owner is being prosecuted for failing to comply with dangerous dog rules
There is a dispute over whether the victim’s conduct caused or justified the dog’s reaction
These defenses do not guarantee dismissal, but if proven, they can prevent liability, seizure, or destruction of the dog.
Related Statutes
§ 822.041 – Definitions (Dangerous Dog)
§ 822.042 – Owner Requirements
§ 822.044 – Seizure and Destruction
Texas Penal Code § 30.05 – Criminal Trespass
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 87 – Liability for Animal Injuries
Texas Case Law Interpreting § 822.045
Court found that secure fencing and signage can support an affirmative defense under § 822.045(4).
Held that owner defenses must be proven at the hearing stage and do not block seizure if procedural compliance fails.
Confirmed that a dog’s use for property protection within a lawful enclosure may bar destruction.
Frequently Asked Questions About § 822.045
Houston Personal Injury Lawyer - Joel A. Gordon
Yes. Trespassing is a statutory defense under § 822.045(5).
Yes. Defenses apply to seizure or destruction—not to registration or restraint requirements.
Yes, if you’re a vet, dog trainer, animal control officer, or similar worker acting within your official duties.
You may have a defense if the yard was a secure enclosure marked appropriately and the person entered without consent.