Connecticut
Connecticut Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 23, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 23, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 22-357, dog owners and keepers face strict liability for bite injuries. Victims do not need to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. The statute's own defenses are that the victim was trespassing or committing another tort, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog.
Estimate your claim: Use our free Connecticut Dog Bite Settlement Calculator to see a rough settlement range based on the medical bills, the bite location, the victim's age, and Connecticut's liability rule.
How Connecticut Dog Bite Liability Works
Connecticut is a strict liability state for dog bite injuries. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357, if any dog causes damage to a person's body or property, the owner or keeper of that dog is liable for the full amount of the damage.

This means victims do not need to prove the owner was careless or that the dog had a history of aggression. The victim only needs to show three things:
- The defendant owned or kept the dog
- The dog caused injury to the victim
- The victim was lawfully present where the bite occurred
Connecticut's strict liability standard replaced the older "one-bite rule" that many states still follow. There is no free pass for a first bite in Connecticut.
Who Qualifies as an Owner or Keeper
Liability extends beyond just the dog's legal owner. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-327(6), a "keeper" is any person other than the owner who harbors or possesses a dog.
This broad definition means the following people may face strict liability for a dog bite:
- The dog's registered owner
- A person temporarily caring for or watching the dog
- A family member who regularly feeds, walks, or houses the dog
- A dog sitter or boarding facility operator
If the owner or keeper is a minor, the minor's parent or guardian becomes liable for the damage under § 22-357.
Defenses Available to Dog Owners
Connecticut's strict liability law includes two statutory defenses that can eliminate or reduce a dog owner's liability.
Trespassing or Committing a Tort
The owner is not liable if the victim was committing a trespass or other tort at the time of the bite. However, Connecticut courts have interpreted this narrowly. Simply entering another person's property does not automatically qualify as trespassing under this statute. The courts require that the person was committing or intended to commit an injurious act.
This means delivery workers, mail carriers, utility workers, and social guests who enter property with implied permission are generally protected by the statute.
Teasing, Tormenting, or Abusing the Dog
If the victim was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog when the bite happened, the owner is not liable. The provocation must be significant enough to cause an otherwise calm dog to react aggressively.
Special Protection for Children Under 7
Connecticut law provides extra protection for young children. Under § 22-357, if the victim was under seven years old at the time of the bite, the law presumes the child was not trespassing, committing a tort, or teasing the dog. The burden shifts to the dog owner to prove otherwise.
This presumption makes it very difficult for dog owners to raise defenses against claims involving young children.
No Comparative-Fault Reduction on the Strict-Liability Claim
Connecticut's modified comparative negligence rule under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h applies to negligence actions; the statute's own text excludes strict liability claims from its fault-apportionment scheme. Because a dog bite claim under § 22-357 is a strict liability claim rather than a negligence claim, § 52-572h's fault-reduction rule does not apply to it.
The statutory defenses to a § 22-357 claim are the two written into the statute: the victim was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog, at the time of the bite. Those are not the only defenses a defendant can raise. The official annotations to § 22-357 record that parental immunity bars a strict liability action under the statute by an unemancipated minor against a parent (234 C. 259), that § 52-557n does not abrogate governmental immunity for strict liability claims (58 CA 702), and that a defendant can contest whether they were an owner or keeper of the dog at all (286 C. 152; 94 CA 617; 217 CA 754). A separate negligence claim against another party, such as a landlord, could still be subject to comparative-fault reduction under § 52-572h.
Liability for Multiple Dogs
When two or more dogs cause injury at the same time and those dogs belong to different owners or keepers, Connecticut law under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-356 makes all owners or keepers jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages.
This means the victim can pursue the entire amount of their damages from any one of the dog owners. That owner may then seek contribution from the other owners for their share.
Damages Victims Can Recover
Dog bite victims in Connecticut may recover both economic and non-economic damages under the strict liability statute.
Economic Damages
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Medical expenses | Emergency treatment, surgery, hospitalization, physical therapy |
| Future medical costs | Reconstructive surgery, ongoing rehabilitation, scar treatment |
| Lost wages | Time missed from work during recovery |
| Lost earning capacity | Reduced ability to work due to permanent injuries |
| Property damage | Damaged clothing, personal items, or other property |
Non-Economic Damages
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Pain and suffering | Physical pain from the bite and treatment |
| Emotional distress | Anxiety, PTSD, fear of dogs following the attack |
| Disfigurement | Permanent scarring, especially on visible areas like the face |
| Loss of enjoyment | Reduced quality of life due to lasting injuries |
Connecticut does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases, so there is no statutory limit on pain and suffering awards in dog bite cases.
Statute of Limitations for Dog Bite Claims
The deadline to file a dog bite lawsuit in Connecticut depends on the type of claim:
- Strict liability claims against the dog's owner or keeper must be filed within 3 years from the date of the bite, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577.
- Negligence claims against non-owners (such as a landlord) must be filed within 2 years under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584.
Important exceptions to these deadlines include:
- Minors do not get extra time. Connecticut does not toll these deadlines because the victim is a child. Neither § 52-577 nor § 52-584 contains a minority exception, and the official annotations to § 52-584 state that it "provides no exceptions for minors or insane persons" and "cannot be construed as embodying an exception by implication in favor of an unemancipated minor." A claim brought on a child's behalf runs on the same 3-year or 2-year clock.
- Claims against government entities often require shorter notice periods, sometimes as little as 6 months.
- Discovery rule. The 2-year negligence deadline under § 52-584 runs from when the injury was sustained or reasonably should have been discovered, with an outside limit of 3 years from the act complained of. The 3-year deadline under § 52-577 runs from the date of the act itself.
A missed deadline bars the claim for good, so get a free consultation from a Connecticut dog bite lawyer on whether the 2-year or 3-year deadline applies to yours (attorney advertising).
Quarantine Requirements After a Dog Bite
Connecticut law requires a mandatory quarantine after a dog bites a person. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-359, the animal control officer (ACO) must quarantine the dog for 10 days.
Key quarantine rules include:
- The dog must be held in a public pound, a veterinary hospital, or a commercial kennel approved by the State Veterinarian
- Home quarantine depends on the dog's rabies vaccination status, not on where the bite happened. A currently vaccinated dog may be confined on the owner's or keeper's premises when those premises are adequate for confinement. An unvaccinated dog may be confined there only when a licensed veterinarian determines it is medically necessary, the municipality or agency issuing the order accepts it, and the dog is vaccinated for rabies on the tenth day
- Quarantine itself triggers no notice to the victim. The 24-hour rule attaches to orders: under § 22-358(h)(3), a copy of any restraint or disposal order must be delivered to the dog's owner or keeper and to the person bitten within 24 hours of the order being issued
- The State Veterinarian, or a person designated by the State Veterinarian, examines the dog on the tenth day to decide whether the quarantine continues or is lifted
- The owner pays all quarantine fees
The purpose of the quarantine is to monitor the dog for signs of rabies and evaluate the dog's behavior. The owner may authorize humane euthanasia at any time during the quarantine. If euthanized before day 10, the animal must be examined for rabies by the Connecticut Department of Public Health Laboratory or any laboratory authorized by that department, and the veterinarian who performs the euthanasia must deliver the animal's head to that laboratory within 48 hours.
Restraint and Disposal Orders
After the quarantine period, the ACO or the Commissioner of Agriculture may issue orders to restrain or dispose of the dog if they determine it poses a continuing threat to public safety.
Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-358, possible outcomes include:
- Restraint orders requiring the owner to confine the dog, use a muzzle in public, or comply with other conditions
- Disposal orders requiring the dog to be humanely euthanized if the ACO determines the dog is a serious public safety risk
- Appeals are available through the courts for owners who disagree with a disposal order
An ACO from the town where the attack occurred has authority to investigate and issue these orders after confirming the bite and assessing the risk.
Dog Owner Criminal Penalties
Connecticut imposes criminal penalties on dog owners who fail to control their animals.
Nuisance Dogs (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-363)
Owning or harboring a dog that is a nuisance due to vicious disposition, excessive barking, or other disturbance is a violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-363.
| Offense | Penalty |
|---|---|
| First offense | Infraction |
| Subsequent offenses | Class D misdemeanor: fine up to $250, imprisonment up to 30 days, or both |
Dogs Roaming at Large (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-364)
Allowing a dog to roam at large on another person's land or on a public highway without control is prohibited under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-364.
| Offense | Penalty |
|---|---|
| First offense | Infraction |
| Subsequent reckless violation (vicious dog causes injury) | Fine up to $1,000, imprisonment up to 6 months, or both |
The enhanced penalty under § 22-364 applies when the owner knew the dog had vicious propensities, was convicted of a roaming violation within the past year, and intentionally or recklessly allowed the dog to roam again, resulting in physical injury to a person who was not provoking the dog.
Landlord Liability for Dog Bites
Landlords in Connecticut are not automatically liable for bites by a tenant's dog. The dog bite statute under § 22-357 applies to "owners or keepers," and a landlord who does not harbor or control the tenant's dog is typically not considered a keeper.
However, landlords can face negligence liability under common law if:
- The landlord knew the tenant's dog had dangerous tendencies
- The landlord retained control over common areas where the bite occurred
- The landlord failed to take reasonable steps to address the known danger
The Connecticut Appellate Court addressed this in Giacalone v. Housing Authority of Town of Wallingford, holding that a common-law negligence claim against a landlord in a dog bite case should not be stricken merely because the landlord was not alleged to be the owner or keeper of the dog. The tenant who sued there alleged that the landlord knew a tenant's dog was dangerous and aggressive, and had ordered in writing that the dog be removed but never followed up on that order.
Negligence claims against landlords carry a shorter 2-year statute of limitations under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584, compared to the 3-year deadline for strict liability claims against owners.
Breed-Specific Legislation Is Banned in Connecticut
Connecticut prohibits breed-specific legislation (BSL) statewide. The authority is Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148(c)(7)(D)(i), which lets a municipality regulate animals going at large "except that no municipality shall adopt breed-specific dog ordinances." That language was added by Public Act 13-103, signed on June 6, 2013.
This means no city or town in Connecticut can:
- Ban ownership of specific breeds such as pit bulls or rottweilers
- Impose special requirements on owners of specific breeds
- Require breed-specific spay/neuter mandates
Connecticut's approach focuses on individual dog behavior rather than breed. Any enforcement actions must target specific dogs based on their conduct, not their breed.
Dog Owner Responsibilities
Connecticut law places several responsibilities on dog owners:
- Licensing: Dogs over 6 months old must be licensed with the town clerk under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-338
- Rabies vaccination: Required before licensing and must be kept current
- Confinement: Dogs must be kept under the owner's control and not allowed to roam at large
- Leash laws: Many Connecticut municipalities enforce local leash ordinances in public spaces
- Cleanup: Local ordinances in most towns require owners to clean up after their dogs in public areas
Violating these requirements may not only result in fines but can also strengthen a victim's injury claim by demonstrating the owner's disregard for public safety.
Steps to Take After a Dog Bite in Connecticut
If you are bitten by a dog in Connecticut, take these steps to protect your health and your legal rights:
- Get medical treatment immediately. Dog bites carry infection risk, and medical records become key evidence in any claim.
- Report the bite to animal control. Connecticut law requires quarantine of biting dogs, and reporting triggers this process.
- File a police report. An official report creates a documented record of the incident.
- Photograph your injuries. Take photos on the day of the bite and throughout your recovery to document healing progress.
- Identify the dog and owner. Get the owner's name, address, phone number, and homeowner's insurance information if possible.
- Collect witness information. Names and contact details from anyone who saw the attack.
- Preserve evidence. Keep torn or bloodied clothing and any other physical evidence.
- Track all expenses. Save every medical bill, prescription receipt, and record of missed work.
- Consult a personal injury attorney. An attorney can evaluate your case, identify all liable parties, and handle insurance negotiations.
More Connecticut Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Connecticut follow the one-bite rule for dog bite cases?
No. Connecticut is a strict liability state under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357. Dog owners are liable for bite injuries regardless of whether they knew their dog was dangerous or had bitten before. The victim only needs to prove the defendant owned or kept the dog, the dog caused injury, and the victim was lawfully present.
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in Connecticut?
For strict liability claims against the dog owner or keeper, the statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of the bite under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577. For negligence claims against other parties like landlords, the deadline is 2 years under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584. Connecticut does not toll either deadline for a victim who is a minor, so a claim brought on a child's behalf runs on the same clock.
What happens to the dog after it bites someone in Connecticut?
The dog must be quarantined for 10 days under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-359. The quarantine takes place in a public pound, a veterinary hospital, or an approved commercial kennel, and it may happen on the owner's premises depending on the dog's rabies vaccination status and whether those premises are adequate for confinement. The owner pays all quarantine costs. After the quarantine, the animal control officer may issue restraint or disposal orders based on the investigation.
Can a landlord be held liable for a tenant's dog bite in Connecticut?
A landlord is not automatically liable, since the dog bite statute targets owners and keepers. However, a landlord may face negligence liability if they knew the tenant's dog was dangerous, retained control over the area where the bite occurred, and failed to take reasonable steps to address the danger.
Are any dog breeds banned in Connecticut?
No. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148(c)(7)(D)(i), added by Public Act 13-103 in 2013, prohibits any municipality from adopting breed-specific dog ordinances. Enforcement actions must target individual dogs based on behavior, not breed.
Updates
Corrected the description of Giacalone v. Housing Authority of Town of Wallingford to identify it as an Appellate Court decision and to state the pleading-stage holding the court actually reached.
Corrected the statute of limitations section, which wrongly said Connecticut tolls the filing deadline for minors, and fixed the quarantine, notice, defenses and breed-ordinance sections against the official Connecticut General Statutes.
Corrected the post-bite quarantine period from an incorrect 14 days to the current 10 days (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-359), and updated the nuisance-dog subsequent-offense penalty from a stale flat $100 fine to the current class D misdemeanor (up to $250 fine).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected a claim that Connecticut's modified comparative-negligence statute (§ 52-572h) reduces recovery on the strict-liability dog-bite claim; that statute's text scopes itself to negligence actions and expressly excludes strict liability, so the article now states that § 22-357's own built-in defenses (trespass/tort, teasing/tormenting/abusing) are the only defenses to the strict-liability claim.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 22 (Agriculture. Domestic Animals), Chapter 435
§ 22-357Damage by dogs to person or property.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Law enforcement officer” means: Each officer, employee or other person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of (A) the Division of State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; (B) the Office of the State Capitol Police; (C) a municipal police department; and (D) the Department of Correction; (2) “Property” includes, but is not limited to, a companion animal, as defined in section 22-351a; (3) “The amount of such damage”, with respect to a companion animal, includes expenses of veterinary care, the fair monetary value of the companion animal, including all training expenses for a service animal owned by a person with a disability and burial expenses for the companion animal; (4) “Service animal” has the same meaning as provided in section 22-345; and (5) “Disability” has the same meaning as provided in section 22-345.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 116 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Falby v. Zarembski (1992) held that Section 22-357 strict liability reaches only an owner or a keeper who harbors or possesses the dog, so an employer that merely allowed a worker's dog on site was not a keeper. Tryon v. Town of North Branford (2000) held that governmental immunity bars a Section 22-357 claim against municipal defendants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Falby v. Zarembski (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1992, 221 Conn. 14)✓A mail carrier was attacked by an employee's pit bull at a remodeling job site; the court held the employer's knowledge of and acquiescence in the dog's presence, without feeding, housing or taking control of it, did not make it a keeper strictly liable under section 22-357.
- Tryon v. Town of North Branford (Connecticut Appellate Court 2000, 58 Conn. App. 702)✓A firefighter was bitten by a volunteer firefighter's dalmatian at a parade; the court held governmental immunity bars section 22-357 strict liability claims because neither that statute nor 52-557n abrogates it, affirming summary judgment there but reviving her negligence claim.
- Squeglia v. Squeglia (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1995, 234 Conn. 259)✓A four year old bitten by his father's dog at the family home sued his father under section 22-357; the court held the doctrine of parental immunity bars an unemancipated minor's strict liability action against a parent under that statute, and affirmed summary judgment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Dog Bite Laws by State: Liability and Victim Rights
§ 22-356Damage by two or more dogs.In force
If any person has been damaged in person or property by two or more dogs at the same time, kept by two or more persons, the owners or keepers of such dogs shall be jointly and severally liable for such damage.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
§ 22-358Killing of dogs doing damage. Restraint or disposal orders. Notice. Seizure. Pre-appeal meeting. Appeal of order to the Superior Court. Complaints by persons sustaining damage by biting or attacking dog to poultry, ratite, domestic rabbit, animal or livestock. Investigation. Orders. Exemptions.Repealed
(a) Any owner or keeper of any animal or poultry, or an agent of such owner or keeper, or any animal control officer appointed pursuant to section 22-328, 22-331 or 22-331a, or any police officer, including a state police officer, may kill any dog while the dog is in the act of biting, attacking or pursuing any such animal or poultry of the owner or keeper. Any owner, keeper, animal control officer or police officer who kills such dog shall make complaint concerning the circumstances of the attack to any animal control officer appointed pursuant to section 22-331 or 22-331a of the town where such attack occurred. The animal control officer to whom such complaint is made shall investigate the circumstances of the attack set forth in the complaint and report on the circumstances of the attack to the Chief State Animal Control Officer, appointed pursuant to section 22-328.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Fiocchi (Connecticut Appellate Court 1989, 17 Conn. App. 326)“…limited its instruction on the defense of justification to General Statutes § 22-358. 4 The defendant argues that in additi…”
- Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2008, 286 Conn. 152)“…m in Vermont? See footnote 4 of this dissenting opinion and General Statutes § 22-358(c) (Providing that subject to hearing a…”
- Bonington v. Town of Westport (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2010, 297 Conn. 297)“…76 (1975) (concluding in case of dog warden charged under General Statutes § 22-358 with duty of quarantining dog for fourt…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-359Control of rabies. Quarantine. Regulations. Report of rabies cases. Fine. Seizure of animals. Costs.In force
(a) The commissioner, or the commissioner's designee, may make such orders for the testing for rabies, adequate confinement, quarantine, control or humane euthanasia of any dog, cat or other animal as necessary to prevent the spread of rabies and to protect the public. Any local director of health may order the humane euthanasia of any unowned animal that is not currently vaccinated for rabies for the purpose of rabies testing if the director finds that the animal has bitten a person and the health or life of such person may be threatened. (b) The commissioner or any animal control officer appointed pursuant to section 22-328, 22-331 or 22-331a shall quarantine any animal in a public pound, veterinary hospital, kennel or other building or enclosure approved by the commissioner for such purpose, if in the determination of the commissioner or such officer, such animal is rabid or is suspected of being rabid, or has been bitten by, or may have been bitten by, or has been in contact with or exposed to, a rabid animal or an animal suspected of carrying rabies or any wild animal as defined in subsection (d) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Josephs (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2018, 328 Conn. 21)“…n owner's premises, to kill such dog or cat during attack); General Statutes § 22-359 (b) (permitting "humane euthaniz[ation]…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-364Dogs or livestock roaming at large. Order for enforcement. Intentional or reckless subsequent violation.In force
(a) No owner or keeper of any dog or livestock as defined in section 22-381 shall allow such dog or livestock to roam at large upon the land of another and not under control of the owner or keeper or the agent of the owner or keeper, nor allow such dog or livestock to roam at large on any portion of any public highway and not attended or under control of such owner or keeper or an agent of such owner or keeper, provided nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit or prohibit the use of hunting dogs during the open hunting or training season. The unauthorized presence of any dog or livestock on the land of any person other than the owner or keeper of such dog or livestock or on any portion of a public highway when such dog or livestock is not attended by or under the control of such owner or keeper, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this subsection. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be an infraction.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Smith (Connecticut Appellate Court 2012, 139 Conn. App. 107)“…count of permitting a dog to roam at large in violation of General Statutes § 22-364 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims th…”
- State v. Kluttz (Connecticut Appellate Court 1987, 9 Conn. App. 686)“…es; General Statutes § 51-164p; and allowing a dog to roam. General Statutes § 22-364. General Statutes § 53a-24 (a) p…”
- Demers v. Rosa (Connecticut Appellate Court 2007, 102 Conn. App. 497)“…stem is necessary to encourage the defendant to comply with General Statutes § 22-364, the “dogs roaming at large statute.” T…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-363Nuisance.In force
No person shall own or harbor a dog or dogs which is or are a nuisance by reason of vicious disposition or excessive barking or other disturbance, or, by such barking or other disturbance, is or are a source of annoyance to any sick person residing in the immediate vicinity. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction for the first offense and a class D misdemeanor for each subsequent offense and the court or judge may make such order concerning the restraint or disposal of such dog or dogs as may be deemed necessary.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Olson (Connecticut Appellate Court 1986, 8 Conn. App. 188)“…person residing in the immediate vicinity, in violation of General Statutes § 22-363. 2 The defendant claims on appeal (1)…”
- State v. Acker (Connecticut Appellate Court 2004, 81 Conn. App. 141)“…ive issue in this appeal is whether, in a prosecution under General Statutes § 22-363, 1 also known as our “nuisance dog” st…”
- Miller v. Dept. of Agriculture (Connecticut Appellate Court 2016, 168 Conn. App. 255)“…issued infractions against the plaintiff for nuisance under General Statutes § 22-363,18 and intentional or reckless release…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-338Licensing of dogs. Fees. Rabies certificate. Exemptions.In force
(a) Each owner or keeper of a dog of the age of six months or older, except dogs kept under a kennel license as provided in section 22-342, shall cause such dog to be licensed in the town clerk's office in the town where such dog is kept, on or before June thirtieth, annually, or at such time as such dog becomes six months old, and annually thereafter, on or before June thirtieth. The owner or keeper shall pay to such town clerk for such license the sum of seven dollars for each neutered male or spayed female dog and the sum of twelve dollars for each unneutered male dog and each unspayed female dog, and one additional dollar in each case as the town clerk's fee for issuing a tag and license as provided in section 22-340. Two dollars from each license fee collected for a neutered or spayed dog shall be deposited into the animal population control account, established under section 22-380g. If an owner or keeper of a dog fails to procure a license as required by this section, such owner or keeper shall pay the appropriate license fee specified in this section, the town clerk's fee and a penalty of one dollar for each month or fraction thereof the dog remains unlicensed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- KRONOVITTER v. Doyle (Connecticut Appellate Court 2012, 135 Conn. App. 157)“…s impounded shall be an infraction.” 9 General Statutes § 22-338 provides in relevant part: “(a) Each ow…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 22-327Definitions.In force
As used in this chapter: (1) “Animal” means any brute creature, including, but not limited to, dogs, cats, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, birds and reptiles; (2) “Chief Animal Control Officer”, “Assistant Chief Animal Control Officer” and “animal control officer” mean, respectively, the Chief State Animal Control Officer, the Assistant Chief State Animal Control Officer and a state animal control officer appointed under section 22-328; (3) “Commercial kennel” means a place maintained for boarding or grooming dogs or cats, and includes, but is not limited to, any veterinary hospital which boards or grooms dogs or cats for nonmedical purposes; (4) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Agriculture; (5) “Grooming facility” means any place, including any vehicle or trailer, that is maintained as a business where dogs are groomed; (6) “Keeper” means any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog; (7) “Kennel” means one pack or collection of dogs which are kept under one ownership at a single location and are bred for show, sport or sale; (8) “Municipal animal control officer” means any such officer appointed under the provisions of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 37 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2008, 286 Conn. 152)“…hat it was a "keeper" of Salinas' dog within the meaning of General Statutes §§ 22-327(6) and 22-357 and, second, that the tri…”
- Falby v. Zarembski (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1992, 221 Conn. 14)“…the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog.” General Statutes § 22-327. To harbor a dog is to afford lodging,…”
- Buturla v. St. Onge (Connecticut Appellate Court 1987, 9 Conn. App. 495)“…keeper of a dog is liable for any damage done by that dog. General Statutes § 22-327 defines a “keeper” as “any person, othe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 926
§ 52-577Action founded upon a tort.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 777 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Doty v. Mucci (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 800)“…ed by the applicable statute of limitations, namely, either General Statutes § 52-577 or General Statutes § 52-584. 3 Subseq…”
- S.M.S. Textile Mills, Inc. v. Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan & King, P.C. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1993, 32 Conn. App. 786)“…ticut’s three year statute of limitations for tort actions, General Statutes § 52-577. 1 “Summary judgment must be rendere…”
- Rivera v. Double A Transportation, Inc. (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1999, 248 Conn. 21)“…ined “bodily injuries,” the three year limitation period of General Statutes § 52-577 4 should control. The trial court gran…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Scam and Fraud Laws: Where to Report and CUTPA (2026), Connecticut Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type, Connecticut Whistleblower Laws: Protections and How to Report
§ 52-584Limitation of action for injury to person or property caused by negligence, misconduct or malpractice.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct, or by malpractice of a physician, surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, chiropractor, advanced practice registered nurse, hospital or sanatorium, shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of, except that a counterclaim may be interposed in any such action any time before the pleadings in such action are finally closed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 769 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Burns v. Hartford Hospital (1984) held the two year period runs from discovery of actionable harm, which need not have reached its fullest manifestation. Connell v. Colwell (1990) applied both the two year and three year limits and held a continuing course of conduct tolled 52-584 only until the injury was diagnosed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gurliacci v. Mayer (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1991, 218 Conn. 531)✓A Stamford officer sued a deputy chief who allegedly rear-ended her patrol car while driving intoxicated, then amended after the two years ran to allege he acted wilfully or outside his employment. The court held the amendment related back, so section 52-584 did not bar it.
- Connell v. Colwell (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1990, 214 Conn. 242)✓A physician who monitored a patient's prostate for years allegedly failed to disclose abnormalities; cancer was diagnosed in December 1982 and suit was filed in May 1987. The court held any tolling ended at diagnosis, so section 52-584's three-year repose barred the action.
- Burns v. Hartford Hospital (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1984, 192 Conn. 451)✓A toddler developed a leg infection from contaminated IV tubes; his mother learned of the injury and its cause in November 1975 but sued in November 1978. The court held section 52-584 runs from actionable harm, which need not have fully manifested, so the suit was late.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Connecticut Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Medical Malpractice Laws in Connecticut (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-572hNegligence actions. Doctrines applicable. Liability of multiple tortfeasors for damages.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(a) For the purposes of this section: (1) “Economic damages” means compensation determined by the trier of fact for pecuniary losses including, but not limited to, the cost of reasonable and necessary medical care, rehabilitative services, custodial care and loss of earnings or earning capacity excluding any noneconomic damages; (2) “noneconomic damages” means compensation determined by the trier of fact for all nonpecuniary losses including, but not limited to, physical pain and suffering and mental and emotional suffering; (3) “recoverable economic damages” means the economic damages reduced by any applicable findings including but not limited to set-offs, credits, comparative negligence, additur and remittitur, and any reduction provided by section 52-225a; (4) “recoverable noneconomic damages” means the noneconomic damages reduced by any applicable findings including but not limited to set-offs, credits, comparative negligence, additur and remittitur.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 636 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Williams Ford, Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co. (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1995, 232 Conn. 559)“…f he is negligent in so relying.” The Courant concedes that General Statutes § 52-572h (b) 16 has eliminated this rule in fav…”
- Eskin v. Castiglia (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2000, 253 Conn. 516)“…ng to add a person who may be liable to the plaintiff under General Statutes § 52-572h, 2 may be filed against an unidentifie…”
- Fleming v. Garnett (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1994, 231 Conn. 77)“…sis of the percentage of the claimant’s own negligence. See General Statutes § 52-572h (a) (3), (a) (4) and (b). Indeed, when…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Motorcycle Accident Laws in Connecticut (2026): Helmets, Connecticut Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Connecticut (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 07 (Municipalities), Chapter 98
§ 7-148Scope of municipal powers.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Definitions. Whenever used in this section, “municipality” means any town, city or borough, consolidated town and city or consolidated town and borough. (b) Ordinances. Powers granted to any municipality under the general statutes or by any charter or special act, unless the charter or special act provides to the contrary, shall be exercised by ordinance when the exercise of such powers has the effect of: (1) Establishing rules or regulations of general municipal application, the violation of which may result in the imposition of a fine or other penalty including community service for not more than twenty hours; or (2) Creating a permanent local law of general applicability. (c) Powers. Any municipality shall have the power to do any of the following, in addition to all powers granted to municipalities under the Constitution and general statutes: (1) Corporate powers.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 146 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Miller (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 227 Conn. 363)“…t also violated article tenth, § 1. The defendant relies on General Statutes §§ 7-148, 7-276, 7-277a, 7-281, 29-7, 29-169, 29…”
- Keeney v. Town of Old Saybrook (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 237 Conn. 135)“…to the construction of a wastewater treatment facility. See General Statutes § 7-148 (c) (1) (A) (granting all towns power t…”
- Blue Sky Bar, Inc. v. Town of Stratford (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1987, 203 Conn. 14)“…hat the defendant town had statutory authority, pursuant to General Statutes § 7-148 (c) (7) (H) (iv), to enact the ordinanc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Noise Laws: Quiet Hours, Decibel Limits and Penalties
Sources and References
- Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 435: Dogs and Other Companion Animals(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357: Damage by Dogs to Person or Property (2024)(law.justia.com)
- Connecticut General Assembly Research Report: Liability for Dog Bites(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Connecticut General Assembly: Dog Bite and Quarantine Law (2018)(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-364: Dogs Roaming at Large (2024)(law.justia.com)
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577: Action Founded Upon a Tort (2024)(law.justia.com)
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584: Limitation of Action for Negligence (2024)(law.justia.com)
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h: Comparative Negligence (2024)(law.justia.com)
- Connecticut General Assembly: Dog Bite Liability and Quarantine Process (2026)(cga.ct.gov).gov
- National Canine Research Council: Connecticut Preempts Breed-Specific Laws(nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com)
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-148(c)(7)(D)(i): Municipal Powers, Prohibition on Breed-Specific Dog Ordinances(cga.ct.gov)
- Conn. Gen. Stat. Chapter 926: Statute of Limitations (§ 52-577, § 52-584) with official annotations(cga.ct.gov)
- Connecticut General Assembly Bill Status: Public Act 13-103 (HB 6311), signed June 6, 2013(cga.ct.gov)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.