Orangeburg is a friendly town, but from Five Points to the walking trails around Edisto Memorial Gardens, dog bites can happen. South Carolina does not require a dog-bite victim to prove the owner was careless. A statute imposes liability directly, and it reaches the owner and anyone who had the dog in their care or keeping
A dog bite can lead to injuries ranging from minor punctures to nerve damage requiring surgery, especially in mail carriers, joggers, and children in neighborhoods.
The Arndt Law Firm handles animal attack claims across Orangeburg County. Our firm can help victims pursue any available compensation. Call (843) 310-4645 for a free case review.
Most injury claims require proof that someone failed to act reasonably. A dog bite claim in South Carolina does not. Under S.C. Code § 47-3-110(A), if a person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog while that person is in a public place or is lawfully in a private place, the dog owner or the person having the dog in their care or keeping is liable for the damages suffered.
Three parts carry weight. The statute covers being bitten "or otherwise attacked," which reaches a knockdown, a jumping injury, or a chase that causes harm without contact. The location requirement is also broad: a public place is enough, and so is being lawfully in a private place, which the statute says expressly includes the property of the owner or keeper.
The third is the second defendant. The statute names the owner or the person having the dog in their care or keeping. Someone keeping a dog for a relative, a farm hand responsible for animals on the property, or a household member who took a dog in are all within that language, and each may carry insurance that the owner does not.
No. S.C. Code § 47-3-110 imposes liability directly where the injured person was in a public place or lawfully in a private place. There is no requirement to show the owner knew the dog was dangerous.
S.C. Code § 47-3-110(B) provides that the statute does not apply in two circumstances, and both are narrower than they are usually described.
The first is provocation. The statute does not say that any provocation defeats the claim. It says the section does not apply if the person who was attacked provoked or harassed the dog and that provocation was the proximate cause of the attack. The proximate cause requirement is the defense, and omitting it misstates the law in the owner's favor.
The second is the law enforcement dog exception, which is conditional rather than absolute. It applies where the dog was working in a law enforcement capacity with a governmental agency and in the performance of its official duties, and then only where further conditions are met, including that the attack was in direct and complete compliance with the lawful command of a certified canine officer.
Neither defense turns on the dog's history. South Carolina does not give an owner a free first bite, and evidence of prior aggression is not something a claimant has to produce.
South Carolina treats an animal bite as a public health matter on a short clock, and the duty can fall on the injured person.
Under S.C. Code § 47-5-90, a physician who attends a bite must report it to the county health department by the end of the next working day. Where no physician attends, the responsibility falls on the bitten adult, or the parent or guardian of a bitten child, to report by the end of the next working day.
The South Carolina Department of Public Health administers this. Animal bites are listed by the Department of Public Health as urgently reportable within 24 hours, electronically or by phone.
The consequence of that report is what matters to a claim. The county health department serves notice on the owner of a dog that has attacked or bitten a person, requiring quarantine at the owner's expense for at least ten days. That produces a dated official record identifying the animal and the person responsible for it, created by a public body rather than by an interested party.
That matters more where the attack happened on rural land, and there is no other paper trail at all. A person bitten in a yard on a country road, who cleans the wound at home and tells nobody, has a legal claim and no independent record that the dog exists.
The county health department, under S.C. Code § 47-5-90. A treating physician must report by the end of the next working day, and, where no physician attends, the injured adult or the parent or guardian of a bitten child carries that duty.
The circumstances of an attack outside a town differ from those in a residential neighborhood, and the differences affect proof rather than liability.
Dogs on open or agricultural land are frequently not restrained in the way a suburban dog is, and there may be no fence, no leash, and no obvious boundary marking where a property ends. That does not change the statute. What it changes is the question of where the injured person was standing and whether they were lawfully there, which is the location element the statute turns on.
A delivery driver, a meter reader, a contractor, a neighbor, a mail carrier, or a person walking a public road is lawfully present. A person invited onto the property is lawfully present, including on the owner's own land, as the statute expressly says.
Attacks on people walking or cycling on rural roads raise a further question, since a dog that leaves its property and attacks someone in the roadway was in a public place at the time of the attack, and the statute reaches that squarely.
S.C. Code § 47-3-20 authorizes local animal care and control ordinances, so a county or a city may impose leash, confinement, containment, or dangerous animal requirements that the state code does not.
Most dog bite recoveries come from a homeowner's or renter's policy rather than from an individual policy, and the policy language determines how far it goes.
Three issues recur. Some policies exclude specific breeds outright. Some impose a separate, lower sublimit for animal liability rather than applying the full personal liability limit. Some exclude an animal with a prior recorded incident, which is one reason bite history matters, even though a claimant does not have to prove it.
There is a fourth possibility that arises more often on rural property than in a subdivision: no policy responds at all. A property without a mortgage may carry no homeowner's insurance. A tenant may have no renter's policy. Where the animal was kept in connection with a farm or a business, a farm or commercial policy may apply instead, and that is with a different insurer and different terms.
Establishing what exists is early work because it determines whether there is anything to negotiate with. Where the owner is a tenant, the renter's policy and the landlord's policy are separate potential sources responding to different theories, and where a dog was in someone else's care, that person's own policy may apply, which follows directly from the statute naming keepers.
| Potential source | When it responds | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Owner's homeowner's policy | Owner owns and insures the residence | Breed exclusions, animal sublimits, prior incident exclusions |
| Owner's renter's policy | Owner rents | Whether animal liability is included at all |
| Keeper's own policy | Dog was in another person's care | The statute names keepers, so this is a direct claim |
| Farm or commercial policy | Animal kept in connection with a farm or business | Whether the activity is covered and by which insurer |
| Landlord policy | Landlord knew of a dangerous animal and could act | Knowledge and control, a premises theory |
The statute already reaches keepers, which is a broad reach. Other parties may be responsible under general principles of negligence, depending on their knowledge and control.
A landlord is not automatically responsible for a tenant's dog. Where the landlord knew of a dangerous animal on the property and had the ability to remove it or refuse it, a premises theory may reach them, and that claim turns on knowledge and control rather than on the dog bite statute. The framework sits in the premises liability analysis.
An employer whose worker kept a dog at a work site, a business that permitted an animal on its premises, and a property manager can each be reached on the same reasoning. Identifying every party that had control of the animal or the place determines the money available.
Where the animal belonged to a government agency, the Tort Claims Act applies instead, with a two-year deadline, extended to three years if a verified claim is filed within one year, damage caps of $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, and no punitive damages.
In most South Carolina injury cases, a person 50 percent or less at fault can still recover, with the award reduced by their share (Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991)). The dog bite statute works differently.
It contains no percentage reduction. Its only fault-based defense is provocation, and it applies only where the injured person provoked or harassed the dog, and that provocation was the proximate cause of the attack.
There is a further point specific to this claim type, and it runs the opposite way from every other injury page. For claims arising after January 1, 2026, a defendant in most South Carolina personal injury cases may ask that a party who was never sued be placed on the verdict form and assigned a share of the fault.
That mechanism is unavailable here because S.C. Code § 15-38-15(H)(4) excludes a nondefendant from the verdict form where the causes of action involve strict liability, which is the basis of a claim under § 47-3-110.
Not in a strict liability claim. S.C. Code § 15-38-15(H)(4) keeps a nondefendant off the verdict form where the cause of action involves strict liability, which is what § 47-3-110 creates.
Dog attacks produce a distinctive injury pattern: puncture wounds carrying a high infection risk, crush injuries from the jaw rather than the teeth, nerve damage, and scarring in visible places. Facial injuries are disproportionately common in attacks on children because of their height.
Infection risk warrants particular attention when medical care is farther away. A puncture wound that is cleaned at home and watched for a few days can present as a serious infection, and the treatment record created at that first visit is also the documentation that the claim later depends on.
Scarring damages are assessed on the permanent result rather than the initial wound, which is one reason a claim involving a child is often not ready to value quickly. Reconstructive treatment can extend over years, and psychological effects, including a lasting fear of dogs, are a recognized element of the claim.
The general deadline for filing a dog bite claim is three years from the date of the attack. For a child, South Carolina law pauses the limitations period during minority, subject to a one-year limit after the disability ends.
How that limit applies to a particular claim is contested, so the safest course is to act well within three years of the attack. A parent does not have to wait until the child turns eighteen.
A large share of dog attacks happen to people who were on the property because their work required it, and their position under the statute is strong.
A delivery driver, a meter reader, a utility worker, a contractor, a home health aide, or an inspector is lawfully present, which is the location element S.C. Code § 47-3-110 turns on. The statute expressly includes the property of the owner or keeper among the places where a lawfully present person is covered.
Where that person was working at the time, a second structure applies alongside the statutory claim. Workers' compensation may cover the injury through the employer, and S.C. Code § 42-1-540 generally bars a negligence claim against that employer. What survives is the claim against the dog's owner or keeper, who is a third party.
That third-party claim carries a shorter deadline than the general one. Where workers' compensation is paid, the claim against the dog's owner should be filed within one year after the carrier accepts liability or pays under an award. After that, the carrier can take over the claim once it provides written notice and 20 days have passed.
The rights can return to the worker in some circumstances, but waiting risks losing control of the claim. Any recovery is subject to the carrier's lien.
The dog bite statute reaches the owner or keeper, and you were lawfully present. Where workers' compensation covers the injury, the third-party claim against the dog's owner must be commenced within one year of the carrier's acceptance of liability or payment of benefits.
Suit is filed with the Orangeburg County Clerk of Court, Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial Circuit. If the attack occurred in another county or the owner lives elsewhere, the proper county may differ.
Most dog bite claims resolve with a homeowner's carrier without suit. Filing changes that where a carrier disputes ownership, asserts an exclusion, or takes a position on provocation the evidence does not support, and it is also what produces the local animal control file where one exists.
Serious attacks, particularly on children, are commonly transported to MUSC Orangeburg, though published incidents show patients taken elsewhere as well. In a scarring case, the photographic record from the initial treatment carries weight throughout, and it is easier to build while the injury is fresh.
The statute also covers a person 'otherwise attacked,' which can include a knockdown. Whether a particular chase or jump counts as an attack depends on the facts.
A dog that charges and knocks someone down causes an injury without closing its jaws. A large dog jumping on an older adult can cause a fracture. A dog that chases a cyclist or a runner into a roadway causes an injury even if the animal never made contact. Each is an attack within the language of S.C. Code § 47-3-110.
The same statutory framework applies to all of them. The injured person must have been in a public place or lawfully in a private place; liability attaches to the owner or to the person having the dog in their care or keeping, and the same two defenses apply and no others.
Injuries from these incidents can be more serious than a bite. Hip fractures from a knockdown, head injuries from a fall, and secondary collisions after a chase produce consequences that outweigh a puncture wound. They are also often reported as falls or as road collisions rather than as animal incidents, which affects how the record is created and whether the reporting duty is triggered at all.
Yes. S.C. Code § 47-3-110 applies where a person is bitten or otherwise attacked, which includes knockdowns, jumping, and a chase that causes injury without contact.
No. Liability is statutory, and a claimant does not have to show the dog had bitten before or that the owner knew it was dangerous.
The statute expressly includes the property of the owner or keeper among the places where a lawfully present person is covered.
A dog that attacks a person in a public place is squarely within the statute, and a public road is a public place.
That is a real possibility on a property without a mortgage. Identifying whether a farm, commercial, renter's, or keeper's policy applies is part of the early work.
Nothing up front. Consultations are free and the fee is contingent on recovery.
The Arndt Law Firm initiates an animal attack claim by securing the records the statute creates, namely the county health department bite report and the quarantine notice served on the owner. On a rural property, those documents are typically the only official proof that identifies the animal and the person responsible for it.
Finding a policy is another priority, and it can get complicated since a homeowner's policy may not exist and a farm, commercial, renter's, or keeper's policy may respond instead.
If you’ve been bitten or attacked by a dog in Orangeburg, contact us for a free case review. Attorney Jonathan S. Arndt, who has been licensed in South Carolina since 2018, personally reviews the dog bite cases our firm takes on. First consultation is free, and no attorney fee is owed unless we recover for you.
Last reviewed: August 2026
This page was reviewed by Jonathan S. Arndt, licensed in South Carolina since 2018.
