(1) “Dangerous dog” means any dog that, when unprovoked:
Clark County Dangerous Dog Code

(a) Inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property; or

(b) Kills a domestic animal or livestock without provocation while off the owner’s property; or

(c) Has been previously found to be potentially dangerous and the owner having received notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals or livestock.

(2) “Potentially dangerous dog” means any dog that, when unprovoked:

(a) Inflicts bites on a human, domestic animal or livestock either on public or private property; or

(b) Chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or any dog with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.

Gorman v. Pierce County, 176 WN. App 63 (2013)

Plaintiff attacked by two dogs, Betty and Tank in her own home. Dogs entered through a sliding glass door, severely injured Ms. Gorman and killed her dog. Sued dog owners, but also Pierce County, who defended under public duty doctrine.
Trial court ruled that "failure to enforce" exception applied.
Pierce County ordinance allowed the county to classify a dog as "potentially dangerous" if the county had probable cause to believe the dog (1) bit a person or animal, (2) chased or approached a person "in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack," or (3) was known to otherwise threaten the safety of humans or animals.
County had a duty to evaluate the dog if had a written complaint, report of a dog bite, or other substantial evidence.
Despite numerous complaints, Animal Control had not taken action. Told Gorman to contact owner directly

Filed suit against dog owners on strict liability grounds and against Pierce County for negligence in failing to respond to prior complaints.

Just like any other defendant, Plaintiff must show defendant had legal duty of care. Public Duty doctrine limits that duty of care because government can only be liable for breaching a legal duty owed individually to the plaintiff.

Gorman asked the court to abolish public duty doctrine completely.


Under Pierce County potentially dangerous dog code, owner required to keep dog confined. In Clark County, this would be case only if dog is given dangerous status.

Pierce County only contested second element.
Court found the wording of the ordinance mandated a specific action when the ordinance was violated
The statute said that the County or the County's designee shall classify potentially dangerous dogs. The County or the County's designee MAY find and declare an animal potentially dangerous. So even though did not HAVE to find dog potentially dangerous, they at least had to go through the exercise.
A similar decision was made in Division One in Livingston v. City of Everett, 50 Wn. App. 655 (1988). The municipal code stated that animals in violation of the code MAY be impounded but SHALL not be released to their owners unless animal control determined that the animal was not dangerous. After impounding dogs for behaving aggressively, animal control released the dogs without any evaluation. The next day they attacked a young boy.
So, if the animals involved in your case are "habitual offenders" it may be worth at applicable animal control statutes.

Unlike dogs, there is an argument that ALL horses are dangerous. Liability can be limited through the use of waivers and Equine Liability Statute.

Presumably will not apply if violation of Equine Activity Liability Statute

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant engaged in an equine activity, and, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, no participant nor participant's representative may maintain an action against or recover from an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional for an injury to or the death of a participant engaged in an equine activity.

(2)(a) RCW 4.24.530 and 4.24.540 do not apply to the horse racing industry as regulated in chapter 67.16 RCW.

(b) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall prevent or limit the liability of an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional:

(i) If the equine activity sponsor or the equine professional:

(A) Provided the equipment or tack and the equipment or tack caused the injury; or (Only case is Cuddeback v. Flanagan, 2000 WL 1146850 (2000), unpublished).

(B) Provided the equine and failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, determine the ability of the equine to behave safely with the participant, and determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the particular equine;

(ii) If the equine activity sponsor or the equine professional owns, leases, rents, or otherwise is in lawful possession and control of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a dangerous latent condition which was known to or should have been known to the equine activity sponsor or the equine professional and for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted;

(iii) If the equine activity sponsor or the equine professional commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant and that act or omission caused the injury;

(iv) If the equine activity sponsor or the equine professional intentionally injures the participant;

(v) Under liability provisions as set forth in the products liability laws; or

(vi) Under liability provisions in chapter 16.04, *16.13, or *16.16 RCW.

Status as "Equine Activity Sponsor" critical. See Patrick v. Sferra, 70 Wn.App. 676 (1993) (gift horse); Person v. Bowman, 173 Wn. App. 1024 (2013) unpublished (horse being purchased on contract)

McGraw v. R and R Investments, 877 So.2d 886 (Fla. App. 2004); Ford v. Bynum Livestock Co., 674 So.2d 600 (Ala. App. 1995)(failure to post specific warning sign regarding equine activities required by statute was fatal to equine activity liability defense).