How the 2024 Colorado Dog-Bite Statute Separates Injury, Presence, Ownership, Exceptions, and Other Claims

1. Injury severity: “serious bodily injury”

The strict-liability recovery is available only for serious bodily injury or death. Lesser injuries are not covered by this provision. The statute defines “serious bodily injury” by reference to C.R.S. §18-1-901(3)(p) (the same definition used in criminal law). That definition typically involves injury that creates a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function. Whether a particular bite meets that threshold is fact-dependent and cannot be assumed from the statute alone.

Practical check: Was the injury a “serious bodily injury” as defined in §18-1-901(3)(p)? If not, the strict-liability claim under §13-21-124(2) does not apply. Other claims may still exist (see item 5).

2. Lawful presence

The statute requires the person to be lawfully on public or private property. The statute defines this broadly: it includes performing a duty imposed by law, being on property by express or implied invitation, or being on one’s own property. So being on your own property, or being invited, or being there to perform a legal duty (like a mail carrier or utility worker) generally satisfies this element. But if you were unlawfully on the property, the strict-liability claim may be barred.

Practical check: Were you lawfully on the property? Were you on your own property, invited, or performing a duty imposed by law?

3. Ownership and control

The statute defines “dog owner” broadly. It includes a person or entity that owns, possesses, harbors, keeps, has a financial/property interest in, or has control or custody of the dog. This is not limited to the person who bought the dog. A landlord, a caretaker, or someone who merely keeps the dog temporarily could fall within the definition. The key is control or custody, not formal title.

Practical check: Who had ownership, possession, harboring, keeping, financial interest, control, or custody of the dog at the time of the bite? That person or entity may be the “owner” under the statute.

4. Statutory exceptions and defenses

The statute lists specific situations where liability does not attach. These are separate from the elements above. The exceptions include:

• The person was unlawfully on the property.
• Clearly posted “no trespassing” or “beware of dog” signs.
• The dog was used by a peace officer or military in the performance of duty.
• The person knowingly provoked the dog.
• The person was a veterinarian, groomer, humane-staff member, professional handler, trainer, or judge acting in the course of duty.
• The dog was working as a hunting, herding, farm/ranch, or predator-control dog on the owner’s property or under the owner’s control.

Practical check: Does any exception apply? For example, were you knowingly provoking the dog, or were you a professional handler acting in duty?

5. Other negligence claims are preserved

The statute explicitly states that it does not affect other causes of action based on negligence, intentional tort, outrageous conduct, or other theories. It also does not affect other criminal or civil statutes, nor the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. This means that even if the strict-liability claim fails (e.g., because the injury was not “serious bodily injury” or you were not lawfully on the property), you may still have a separate negligence claim under common law or other statutes. Those claims are not governed by §13-21-124 and may have different elements and remedies.

Practical check: Even if the strict-liability claim does not apply, is there a negligence claim based on the owner’s failure to control the dog, or another theory?