At The Arndt Law Firm, we understand that being a victim of a dog bite can be a traumatic experience, both physically and emotionally. Our dedicated team is here to guide you through the legal process, ensuring you understand your rights under South Carolina's strict liability law.
Navigating the complexities of dog bite cases requires expertise and a thorough understanding of local laws. With a keen awareness of the legal landscape in Summerville and its surrounding areas, we will help determine the best course of action for your specific situation. Whether your case involves a private individual or a government entity, we are prepared to tackle the challenges ahead and fight for your rights as a victim.
In addition to our legal experience, our firm values real client support. We strive to provide a safe environment where you can openly discuss your concerns while we devise a strategic plan to address your case. Our goal is to ensure that you not only receive the compensation you need for medical expenses and lost wages but also find a sense of closure and healing from the ordeal.
If you or someone you know has been bitten or attacked by a dog in Summerville, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Contact The Arndt Law Firm today for a free consultation to discuss your case and explore your options. Let us partner with you in your pursuit of justice and help you move forward with confidence.
South Carolina is a strict liability state for dog bites, which sets it apart from states that give an owner a pass for a dog's first bite. Under the South Carolina Dog Bite Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 (2023), when a person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, the dog's owner, or the person who had the dog in their care or keeping, is liable for the damages the victim suffers. The victim does not have to prove negligence.
This is a powerful protection because it removes the hardest part of many injury claims. The victim does not need to show that the owner knew the dog was dangerous, that the dog had bitten before, or that the owner failed to restrain it properly. The simple facts that the dog bit or attacked the person, and that the person was lawfully present and did not provoke the dog, establish the owner's liability. A dog with no history of aggression, owned by a responsible person, can still trigger liability the first time it bites.
The law also reaches beyond bites. South Carolina Dog Bite Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 (2023), applies when a person is bitten "or otherwise attacked," which covers injuries a dog causes without biting, such as a dog that runs out and knocks a person down, causing them to fall and be hurt. This broader reach means the strict liability protection extends to the range of ways a dog can injure someone, not only to puncture wounds from a bite.
It helps to understand how different this is from the approach many other states take. A number of states follow a one-bite rule, under which an owner is liable only if the dog had previously shown dangerous tendencies or had bitten before, putting the burden on the victim to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous.
Other states apply ordinary negligence, requiring the victim to show the owner failed to use reasonable care. South Carolina's strict liability standard is far more protective, because it asks only whether the dog attacked a person who was lawfully present and not provoking it, not whether the owner did anything wrong or knew of any risk. There is also no statewide breed-specific legislation, meaning the standard applies regardless of the breed of the dog involved.
The practical effect of strict liability is to shift the focus of a dog bite case away from the owner's state of mind and onto the simpler factual questions of what the dog did and whether the victim was lawfully present and not provoking it. In a one-bite or negligence state, an owner can defend by claiming they had no reason to think the dog was dangerous, which often turns the case into a dispute about what the owner knew.
South Carolina forecloses that defense, so an owner generally cannot escape liability by pointing to the dog's clean record or their own care. This makes the strict liability standard not just a technical rule but a substantial advantage for victims, because it removes the very issue that most often defeats dog bite claims elsewhere and lets the case proceed on the facts of the attack itself.
The statute imposes liability on the dog's owner and on any person who had the dog in their care or keeping at the time, which means responsibility can extend beyond the legal owner. A person watching the dog, such as a dog sitter, a friend, or anyone who had charge of the animal when it attacked, can be liable under the same strict standard. This matters when the legal owner is not the person who was handling the dog at the time of the attack.
Identifying all potentially responsible parties is essential when building a claim, as the available insurance often depends on who is liable. In the case of a dog attack in Summerville, the county line can significantly affect the situation. Summerville spans both Dorchester and Charleston Counties, so the appropriate courthouse depends on where the attack took place.
If the incident occurs on the Dorchester County side, the case will be handled in the First Judicial Circuit at the Dorchester County Courthouse, located at 5200 E. Jim Bilton Blvd., St. George, SC 29477. Conversely, if the incident occurs on the Charleston County side, the case will be heard in the Ninth Judicial Circuit at 100 Broad Street in Charleston.
It's important to note that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the dog bite, not the mailing address of the victim or the dog owner.
Most dog bite claims are covered by the homeowner's or renter's insurance of the responsible party, and these policies typically provide liability coverage for dog-related injuries, sometimes even for incidents that occur away from the home. Therefore, identifying the owner or keeper of the dog and understanding the insurance policy behind them is central to recovering damages for the injury.
Section 47-3-110's strict liability reaches the dog's owner and any person who had the dog in their care or keeping, such as a dog sitter, a friend, or anyone else in charge of the animal at the time.
A landlord who neither owned nor kept the dog is not covered by the statute. A claim against a landlord, where one exists at all, would have to be brought as an ordinary negligence claim and would depend on what the landlord knew and what control they had. South Carolina courts have not squarely resolved the question, so it should be evaluated case by case. Coverage questions can also arise because some insurance policies exclude certain breeds or cap the amount they will pay for a dog-related claim. Reviewing the available coverage and identifying every responsible party and policy is therefore an important early step, especially when injuries are serious.
Section 47-3-110 has two express exceptions, both in subsection (B). The first is provocation: the section does not apply if the person provoked or harassed the dog and that provocation was the proximate cause of the attack. Provocation generally requires intentional conduct directed at the dog, such as teasing, hitting, or tormenting it, rather than ordinary behavior near the animal.
The second statutory exception is for law enforcement dogs. This exception applies only if all six statutory conditions are met: the dog must have been acting on the lawful command of a duly certified canine officer, trained and certified to South Carolina Law Enforcement Training Council standards, the agency must have a written policy, no policy violation can have occurred, no excessive force can have been used, and the person bitten cannot have been a third party bystander.
Trespassing is not one of the statutory exceptions. Instead, a trespasser fails subsection (A)'s requirement that the victim be in a public place or lawfully in a private place. Lawful presence is defined broadly in subsection (A). It covers anyone performing a duty imposed by South Carolina law, by a political subdivision's ordinance, or by United States law, expressly including postal regulations, so a mail carrier is covered. It also covers anyone present on the express or implied invitation of the property owner, a lawful tenant, or a resident, which is how invited guests and most service and delivery workers qualify.
These defenses are frequently contested, and how they are resolved can decide a case. An owner may claim the victim provoked the dog or was somewhere they should not have been, and the response is to establish that the victim was lawfully present and did nothing to provoke the attack.
South Carolina's dog bite statute does not contain a special rule for children. A child's claim turns on the same question of lawful presence as an adult's. What is different for children is the filing deadline, which is tolled during minority under the South Carolina Tolling Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-40 (2023), and the severity of the injuries, since attacks on small children are disproportionately to the face and head. Establishing the victim's lawful presence and lack of provocation is often the heart of overcoming these defenses, and it is important to hold these exceptions to their proper scope rather than allowing them to be stretched to defeat a valid claim.
It is worth being precise about what provocation means under the statute, because owners often invoke it loosely. The exception requires that the victim's conduct provoked or harassed the dog and that this provocation was the proximate cause of the attack, which generally means intentional conduct directed at the animal rather than ordinary behavior in its vicinity.
Walking past a dog, approaching in a normal way, or even a child's innocent interaction is not the kind of provocation the statute contemplates, and an owner cannot defeat a claim simply by asserting that the victim was near the dog or did something the dog reacted to. Holding the provocation defense to its actual legal standard, rather than the broad version an insurer may advance, is part of protecting a dog bite claim, and it is one reason the specific facts of the encounter, established through witnesses and the circumstances, matter so much to the outcome.
South Carolina's modified comparative negligence bar comes from case law, not from a statute. It was adopted in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991). A separate statute, the South Carolina Comparative Fault Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-38-15 (2023), governs how fault is apportioned among defendants and has two versions depending on whether the claim arose before or after January 1, 2026.
South Carolina Dog Bite Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 (2023), is a strict liability statute, and it does not contain a comparative fault provision. Its only fault-based defense is provocation, and the statute makes that a complete bar rather than a reduction: if the victim provoked or harassed the dog and that provocation was the proximate cause of the attack, the section does not apply at all. An insurer may still argue about the victim's conduct. Still, South Carolina appellate courts have not held that a percentage reduction applies to a South Carolina Dog Bite Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 (2023) claim.
This is distinct from the provocation defense, though related. Provocation that was the proximate cause of the attack can defeat the claim entirely under the statute. At the same time, conduct that fell short of that but still contributed to the incident might be argued as comparative fault to reduce the recovery. The insurer's goal is to shift some responsibility onto the victim, whether to defeat the claim through provocation or to reduce it through comparative fault.
Meeting these arguments takes evidence about exactly what happened before and during the attack. Witnesses, the circumstances of the encounter, and the victim's actual conduct all bear on whether any provocation occurred and on how fault should be allocated. Because these arguments can significantly affect the recovery, establishing that the victim behaved reasonably and did not provoke the dog is central to protecting the claim under both the statute and the comparative fault rule.
Dog attacks cause injuries that range from puncture wounds to catastrophic and disfiguring harm. Bites can cause deep lacerations, puncture wounds, crushing injuries, nerve and tissue damage, and infection, and attacks to the face and head, common in attacks on children, can cause permanent scarring and disfigurement. The physical injuries are often accompanied by significant emotional trauma, particularly for children, who may develop lasting fear and anxiety after an attack.
Children and older adults are especially vulnerable to severe injuries. A dog attack on a small child can cause devastating facial and head injuries because of the child's size, and these cases frequently require surgery. They may involve long-term reconstructive and psychological treatment.
When a serious attack occurs in the Summerville area, the victim may be treated at HCA Healthcare Summerville Hospital, which has a dedicated pediatric emergency room, or for serious trauma at HCA Healthcare Trident Hospital (9330 Medical Plaza Dr., Charleston, SC 29406), the area's Level II trauma center. The most catastrophic cases go to MUSC Health in Charleston, the only Level I trauma center serving the Lowcountry.
Infection is a distinctive medical risk in dog bite cases that adds to their seriousness. A bite drives bacteria deep into the tissue, and wounds that appear minor on the surface can develop serious infections, which is why medical evaluation matters even for bites that do not look severe.
Beyond infection, a bite raises the question of rabies risk, making the dog's vaccination status an immediate concern, and some victims require a series of preventive treatments when that status cannot be confirmed. In the most severe cases, dog attacks can be fatal, raising the wrongful death considerations addressed on our Summerville wrongful death lawyer page.
The lasting consequences of a serious attack often go well beyond the initial wounds, and a complete claim accounts for all of them. Deep bites and attacks to the face frequently leave permanent scarring that may require reconstructive surgery, sometimes in multiple stages over years, and the disfigurement carries an emotional weight that the medical record alone does not capture.
For children especially, the psychological impact can be profound and enduring, with lasting fear of dogs, anxiety, and in some cases symptoms of post-traumatic stress that call for professional treatment. South Carolina law recognizes these scarring, disfigurement, and psychological harms as real and compensable elements of a dog bite claim, not afterthoughts to the physical wounds, and documenting their full extent, including the future reconstructive and psychological care a victim may need, is essential to a recovery that reflects the true impact of the attack.
The steps taken after a dog attack protect both health and any claim that follows. The first priority is medical care, because dog bites carry a serious risk of infection and may involve damage beneath the surface that is not immediately apparent; prompt treatment both protects health and documents the injury at its origin. Even a bite that looks minor should be evaluated, because puncture wounds can introduce bacteria deep into the tissue.
Identifying the dog and its owner is critical and time-sensitive. Get the name and contact information of the owner or the person who had the dog, and if possible, information about the dog's vaccination history, which bears on the risk of rabies and other concerns. Report the attack to animal control, which creates an official record, may reveal whether the dog has a history, and helps establish the facts that matter to the claim. Photograph the injuries and the location while the scene is fresh.
In the days that follow, preserve the evidence and be careful with insurers. Keep a record of the medical treatment and its costs, photograph the injuries as they heal to document scarring, and collect the names of any witnesses who saw the attack and can confirm that you were lawfully present and did not provoke the dog. Avoid giving a recorded statement to the owner's insurer before understanding your rights. Because the owner's likely defenses turn on provocation and lawful presence, the witness accounts and records that establish what actually happened are especially valuable, and they are easiest to gather soon after the attack.
| Element | South Carolina dog bite rule |
| Standard | Strict liability; no need to prove owner negligence (§ 47-3-110) |
| Prior history | Irrelevant; owner liable even for a dog's first bite |
| Covered injuries | Bites and other attacks, including knockdowns |
| Key exceptions | Provocation that caused the attack; trespassing |
| Lawful presence | Includes invited guests and workers like mail carriers |
No, South Carolina applies strict liability under the South Carolina Dog Bite Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110 (2023). Hence, the owner is liable if you were lawfully present and did not provoke the dog, regardless of the dog's history.
The owner can still be liable. South Carolina does not give a dog a free first bite, so a lack of prior history does not defeat the claim.
Section 47-3-110 has two express exceptions, both in subsection (B): (1) provocation or harassment by the victim that was the proximate cause of the attack and (2) a law enforcement dog, but only if all six statutory conditions are met. Trespassing is not a statutory exception, but a trespasser does not satisfy the lawful presence requirement in subsection (A).
Dog bite claims are usually paid through the owner's or keeper's homeowner's or renter's insurance, though some policies exclude certain breeds or cap coverage.
Most South Carolina dog bite claims must be filed within three years under South Carolina Statute of Limitations, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5) (2023). Different deadlines apply in two common situations. If the victim was under 18 when bitten, South Carolina Tolling Statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-40 (2023), tolls the limitations period during minority, so a child's claim is generally not measured the same way as an adult's; the precise computation is contested in South Carolina, so a minor's deadline should be confirmed with a lawyer rather than assumed.
If a city, county, or state entity is responsible, such as an animal control agency or law enforcement agency whose dog was involved, the South Carolina Tort Claims Act governs. The deadline is two years, extended to three only if a verified claim is first filed with the agency within one year of the loss (South Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-110 (2023)). Recovery against a governmental entity is capped at $300,000 per person and $600,000 per occurrence, and punitive damages are not available (S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-120 (2023)).
The Arndt Law Firm builds every Summerville dog bite case on South Carolina's strict liability law, establishing the victim's lawful presence and lack of provocation to overcome the owner's defenses, identifying every responsible owner or keeper and the insurance that stands behind them, and documenting the full physical and emotional impact of the attack. Because attorney Arndt previously defended insurers, the firm understands how these claims are evaluated and contested and builds them to reflect the true harm.
If you or your child was bitten or attacked by a dog in Summerville or anywhere in the tri-county Lowcountry, acting early protects the evidence and witness accounts that counter the provocation and trespassing defenses an owner is likely to raise.
The consultation is free, dog bite cases are handled on a contingency basis with no fee unless there is a recovery, and the records and accounts that establish lawful presence are easiest to secure soon after the attack. Reach out through our contact page to discuss what happened, and see how these rules apply across the state on our South Carolina dog bite page.
Last reviewed: June 2026
This page was reviewed by Jonathan S. Arndt, licensed in South Carolina since 2018.
Content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
