Breed-Specific Legislation adds a challenging layer to Missouri’s dog bite laws, particularly in the St. Louis area where city-level breed bans create a patchwork of regulations.
In Missouri, owners are held strictly liable if their dog bites someone—regardless of the dog’s history. Victims don’t have to prove negligence, making it one of the simpler states to file dog bite claims in St. Louis. A knowledgeable St. Louis dog bite injury lawyer can help victims navigate this strict liability framework and pursue the compensation they deserve.
But it becomes more complicated with Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL). While it is true that St. Louis City does not have BSL, surrounding St. Louis cities like Florissant and Sikeston ban or restrict breeds like pit bulls and Rottweilers. These city-level ordinances form legal layers which can affect how lawsuits get processed, especially when breed identification and insurance come into play.
So the question remains, does BSL actually protect the public—or does it just complicate litigation?
What Is BSL and Where Is It Enforced in Missouri?
Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) is local law banning or restricting ownership of a specific dog breed—most commonly pit bulls, Rottweilers, and related breeds defined as “dangerous.” In Missouri, BSL is not statewide but enacted at the city level, creating a patchwork of laws from city to city. Cities like Florissant, Sikeston, and Hazelwood still have breed bans or onerous regulations in place, while others like St. Louis City and Kansas City have removed them in favor of behavior-based enforcement. There have been efforts in recent years at the Missouri legislature to ban BSL outright and prohibit cities from having breed-specific legislation, but no state law has been enacted.
How BSL Impacts Dog Bite Lawsuits
Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) has a strong influence on dog bite cases insofar as it affects both civil liability as well as defense. The enforcement of BSL reinforces liability claims by creating a definitive legal ground that the ownership of particular restricted breeds contravenes local law, which can be used as evidence for negligence per se—i.e., the owner’s infraction of the law is inherently negligent. But owners can fight back by contesting the breed identification and trying to deflect responsibility by misidentification or improper enforcement allegations. In such cases, expert witnesses come particularly into play, offering professional opinions to validate the breed or type of dog that can heavily influence the court’s determination of liability and damages.
Insurance Challenges Related to BSL
Insurance matters related to Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) present huge challenges to victims of dog bites, since an immediate majority of insurance firms merely refuse to cover breeds under BSL. Such rejection deprives the victim of even more chances of recovering damages, often forcing victims to directly prosecute perpetrators with insufficient assets to facilitate compensation for injury damages. In Missouri, there have been real cases in which insurance companies have denied payments for bites involving BSL-restricted breeds, hindering the processing of claims and increasing the delay for victims to receive fair compensation. These challenges identify the point at which the enforcement of BSL coexists with the real difficulties faced by victims pursuing justice and financial recovery.
What Victims and Dog Owners Should Know
Both dog owners and victims must understand how Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) affects civil litigation, especially in cities like St. Louis where certain breeds are banned but those same cities just a block away have no ban whatsoever. For victims that have been attacked by a banned breed, it is crucial to document the attack suitably—taking photos of injuries, gathering witnesses’ statements, and obtaining any veterinary or medical records—to support their claim. On the other hand, owners in suits for bites brought by BSL must be prepared to counterattack by challenging breed identification, demonstrating compliance with statutes locally, and establishing possession by responsible owners. Knowledge of these steps can help both parties navigate the issues BSL introduces into dog bite cases.
Navigating the Complex Effects of BSL on Missouri Dog Bite Lawsuits
Breed-Specific Legislation adds a challenging layer to Missouri’s dog bite laws, particularly in the St. Louis area where city-level breed bans create a patchwork of regulations. While Missouri’s strict liability rule simplifies claims by not requiring victims to prove negligence, BSL complicates litigation by introducing disputes over breed identification, insurance coverage denials, and varying local ordinances. For victims, understanding these dynamics and thorough documentation of what happens is crucial to obtain reasonable compensation. For dog owners, understanding how to navigate BSL investigation can be invaluable in defending against allegations. And as it happens, despite the intention behind BSL to safeguard the public, its actual application has a way of making dog bite cases even more complicated, lending credence to the importance of careful legal maneuvering in affected Missouri communities.
Join the conversation!