Georgia’s dog statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7, supplies most of the defenses through its own elements. An owner answers only if the dog was vicious or dangerous, the owner carelessly managed it or let it go at liberty, and the injured person didn’t provoke it. Knocking out any of those ends the claim.
- No knowledge of danger. Absent a leash violation, the plaintiff needs evidence that the owner knew the dog had a tendency to do what it did. Steagald v. Eason (2017) is the Georgia Supreme Court’s discussion of this.
- Provocation. The statute protects only someone “who does not provoke the injury by his own act.” Provocation can be disputed, particularly with a child’s behavior.
- No careless management. A dog behind a sound fence, or on a leash, gives the owner a strong response, unless the owner knew of a defect.
- Wrong defendant. A person who “owns or keeps” the dog is the target. A landlord out of possession is protected by § 44-7-14.
- Trespass. A trespasser is owed only protection from willful or wanton injury under § 51-3-3 if the attack happened on the owner’s land.
- Comparative fault. O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 reduces the award by the plaintiff’s share, and bars it at 50 percent or more.
- Time. Two years under § 9-3-33.
Georgia’s Responsible Dog Ownership Law, § 4-8-20 and following, sets rules for classified dangerous and vicious dogs. A local classification can be strong evidence on knowledge.
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.