Next time your dog begs for a treat, you might want to give it to him. In Pennsylvania, a dog reportedly wounded his owner with a shotgun left on the bed, while in North Carolina, a dog was caught on camera setting a house (of the assistant fire chief no less) on fire with a damaged lithium battery. Since I just finished teaching my torts students about animal liability, these cases offer a teachable moment for humans and canines alike.

Dog bite cases have long been a mainstay of torts, even including recent incidents involving the Biden family at the White House. However, what about canine attacks using weapons?

The common law imposes strict liability for dogs if the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensity. Sometimes called the “one-free bite rule,” past evidence of vicious propensity like a bite can be enough to trigger strict liability. Other states are moving to a general strict liability rule. Many have established statutory standards that impose strict liability without requiring proof of prior knowledge of the vicious propensity. These laws preempt the common law rule.

Before we take these dogs out for the ultimate perp walk, let’s explore their possible legal exposure (and putting aside the fact that these owners would have to effectively sue themselves for any liability of their own dogs).

Years ago, I discussed a case in Alabama where a dog ran over its owner with the owner’s own truck, potentially constituting a strict liability offense.

Alabama’s Section 3-6-1, does not limit liability to dog bites but any injury by a dog. The state has a hybrid law. First, in public areas, the law applies a negligence standard. Second, it applies a strict liability approach to the “costs” of any injury caused by a dog. Third, the owner is protected from punitive or statutory damages absent knowledge of the vicious propensity, as under the common law “one free bite rule.”

Since this was the dog’s first vehicular attack and the incident occurred in a public area, he was looking at most a negligent claim. However, the owner was clearly not inclined to pursue the claim against his own dog and contingency lawyers tend not to work for biscuits.

Likewise, in Maine, a dog was accused of driving a vehicle into a lake after his owner put him in his truck as a time-out after fighting with another dog. The good news is that Maine is a strict liability state regardless of any prior knowledge of the vicious propensities of the animal.

The law applies when “a dog injures a person who is not on the owner’s or keeper’s premises at the time of the injury.” A truck is an owner’s property, but not generally considered part of the premises. However, Maine Revised Statutes Title 7, Section 3961 refers to the owner being liable, not the dog. Since this was the owner’s own truck, he was left with a submerged truck and a smirking canine.

Now to the armed canine cases. This is not the first drive-by (or jump-on) shooting by a dog of its owner. Yet, dogs are virtually verdict-proof. After thousands of years of evolution, they have developed that disarming long-face look that melts any jury. The result is that they can mow down humans with impunity and police officers will be left rubbing their stomachs as the coroner packs away their prior owner.

Take the last incident in Berks County, Pennsylvania, where a 53-year-old man was cleaning his shotgun and briefly left it on his bed. His dog then jumped on the bed and shot his owner in the back.

The police do not appear to be treating this as a possible attempted homicide. There is no effort to determine if this was a heat-of-passion crime due to the denial of belly rubs or chew toys.

That leaves civil liability. In Pennsylvania, the state has a hybrid system. If someone is attacked or bitten by a dog, the owner is liable for all medical-related costs. However, for costs or damages other than medical expenses, you must still prove negligence.

Notably, however, the rule applies not just to a bite but any attack, presumably including being gunned down by an armed canine.

Nevertheless, the dog is hardly a deep-bowl defendant capable of paying damages (and the owner would be suing himself). Thus, the dog is likely to escape any serious penalty. Indeed, after learning how to use a shotgun, the dog may find the owner a bit more forthcoming with the treats in the future.

Then there is the pooch in North Carolina, where Chapel Hill Fire Department Assistant Chief David Sasser’s dog, Colton, reportedly “counter surfed” and found a lithium battery. He proceeded to chew on the battery and then placed it on the living room rug, sparking a fire.

Colton sparks small house fire in Chapel Hill, N.C.  (Chapel Hill Fire Department/Facebook)

Much like the Pennsylvania police, the fix is in for the dog. The fire department immediately posted a statement that “Colton is a good boy” and excused his conduct. There was no suggestion that Colton was a canine arsonist.

Fortunately, for Colton, North Carolina is a one-free-bite state. You are strictly liable for a known dangerous or vicious dog. Notably, however, the strict liability is for “any injuries or property damage” and not just dog bites. Torching homes would appear to be within the statutory definition of dog-related damage.

By the way, North Carolina also has laws still on the book on issues like “Permitting bitch at large” and “Failing to kill mad dog“).

It is unclear whether this is the first arson incident connected to Colton, but the claim that he is a “good boy” suggests that his record is clean.

Both of these most recent cases raise concerns over whether local police and fire officials are rolling over for these dogs. However, legally, they appear to be in the clear. Presumably, suspicions would be greater if these were cats. Feline offenses are treated as presumptively intentional.

It is also worth noting that any negligence action would face serious Plaintiff conduct questions due to the conduct of the owners from leaving a loaded gun on a bed to leaving a ticked off dog in a running truck.

I am an unabashed dog lover and willing to serve as defense counsel for any accused canine, great or small. However, Groucho Marx had the only iron-clad rule about dogs: “Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.”

This column also appeared on Fox.com