Texas Supreme Court “No More Free Bites” Ruling: Bushnell v. Mott Explained
Texas has long followed the so-called “one bite rule”: a dog owner generally isn’t liable for a bite unless they knew (or should have known) their dog was dangerous. But a 2008 Texas Supreme Court case, Bushnell v. Mott, carved out an important exception that still matters for dog bite victims today: an owner can be held liable for failing to try to stop an attack once it’s already underway — regardless of whether the dog had ever shown aggression before.
The case: Bushnell v. Mott
Genevia Bushnell went to Janet Mott’s mobile home to deliver wellness products. When Bushnell knocked, Mott’s three dogs began barking, and when Mott opened the door, the dogs pushed past her and attacked Bushnell, biting her legs, arms, back, and shoulder — injuries that took more than two years to heal. According to Bushnell, Mott stood several feet away during the attack and did not intervene, and even scolded Bushnell’s son for trying to pull the dogs off his mother.
Bushnell sued. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mott, and the court of appeals affirmed — both reasoning that because there was no evidence the dogs had ever bitten anyone before, Mott couldn’t be held liable under Texas’s traditional scienter (one bite) rule. The Texas Supreme Court reversed.
What the Court actually decided
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had asked the wrong question. Bushnell wasn’t just arguing that Mott should have kept the dogs away from visitors because they were known to be dangerous — she was arguing that Mott had a separate duty to try to stop the attack once it started, and that duty doesn’t depend on whether the dog had a history of aggression at all.
“[A]lthough the possessor or harborer of a dog or cat is privileged to allow it to run at large and therefore is not required to exercise care to keep it under constant control, he is liable if he sees his dog or cat about to attack a human being … and does not exercise reasonable care to prevent it from doing so.”
— Restatement (Second) of Torts § 518, adopted by the Texas Supreme Court in Bushnell v. Mott, 254 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2008)
In plain terms: once an attack begins, an owner who is present and does nothing to stop it can be held responsible for ordinary negligence — a completely different, and easier, legal theory than proving the owner knew the dog was dangerous beforehand.
Two separate duties, two separate rules
Bushnell is important because it splits Texas dog bite law into two distinct questions, and victims (and the lawyers evaluating their case) need to know both apply:
- Duty before an attack (the “one bite” / scienter rule): to hold an owner liable for simply having a dangerous dog, you generally have to show the owner knew or should have known the dog had dangerous tendencies.
- Duty during an attack (the Bushnell rule): once a dog is actively attacking someone, the owner owes an ordinary duty of reasonable care to try to stop it — and this duty exists whether or not the dog ever showed aggression before that moment.
A case can fail under the first rule and still succeed under the second. That distinction has mattered in the years since Bushnell was decided, and it remains the controlling Texas Supreme Court authority on this question today.
Why this matters if you’ve been bitten in Texas
If an insurance adjuster or defense lawyer tells you a claim is dead on arrival because “the dog never bit anyone before,” that’s only half the analysis. If the owner was present during the attack and failed to make a reasonable effort to call the dog off, restrain it, or otherwise intervene, Bushnell v. Mott gives you a separate, viable path to liability — one insurers don’t always volunteer.
This is also a good example of why dog bite claims are rarely as simple as “was the dog dangerous.” Texas law layers strict liability, negligence, negligence per se (for leash-law and restraint violations), and this active-intervention duty on top of each other, and which one(s) apply can change the outcome of a claim entirely.
Talk to an Austin dog bite lawyer
If you or a family member was bitten or attacked by a dog in the Austin area, don’t assume you have no case just because the dog “had never done this before.” Our office reviews the facts against every applicable Texas legal theory, not just the one an insurance company wants to talk about. Call (512) 246-9191 or contact us online for a free case review.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Case citation: Bushnell v. Mott, 254 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2008).
About Andrew Traub
