Dog bites: the owner's liability in Peru

The underlying mistake: assuming a dog bite is just “bad luck” with no clear liability

It’s easy to assume a dog bite is an accident with no clear party to blame — that unless the owner was obviously careless, “that’s just how animals are” and there’s nothing to claim. Peruvian law doesn’t work that way. Article 1979 of the Civil Code states:

“El dueño de un animal o aquél que lo tiene a su cuidado debe reparar el daño que éste cause, aunque se haya perdido o extraviado, a no ser que pruebe que el evento tuvo lugar por obra o causa de un tercero.”

This is strict liability: you don’t need to prove the owner was negligent, careless, or should have done something differently. It’s enough that the animal caused the harm. The only way the owner is released from liability is by proving the incident happened because of a third party — the burden of proof is on them.

If the bite left you with a serious injury: what article 14 of Ley 27596 requires

Beyond the Civil Code’s general liability rule, Ley N.° 27596 — which specifically regulates the legal regime for dogs — imposes a concrete obligation on the owner when the injury is serious:

“Independientemente de las sanciones administrativas a que haya lugar: a) Si un can ocasiona lesiones graves a una persona, el dueño estará obligado a cubrir el costo total de la hospitalización, medicamentos y cirugía reconstructiva necesaria, hasta su recuperación total, sin perjuicio de la indemnización por daños y perjuicios a que hubiere lugar. Esta disposición no es de aplicación cuando se actúa en defensa propia, de terceros o de la propiedad privada.”

Three important things in this text:

• The obligation is total and runs until full recovery — not a fixed cap or a percentage.
• It’s separate from any damages claim you pursue on top of it; one doesn’t replace the other.
• There’s a clear exception: if the dog acted in self-defense, defense of others, or defense of private property (for example, against someone who forced their way into a home), this specific obligation doesn’t apply.

If the dog attacked another pet

The same logic extends to animals, not just people:

“Si el can ocasiona lesiones graves a otro animal, el dueño estará obligado a cubrir el costo que demande su restablecimiento. En caso de que el animal atacado muriese, el propietario o poseedor del agresor deberá pagar a favor del perjudicado una indemnización equivalente a 1 UIT.”

If your pet was injured, the aggressor dog’s owner covers the cost of its recovery. If it died from the attack, the law sets a fixed indemnity of 1 UIT in your favor, with no need to litigate the amount.

Leash, muzzle, and breeds classed as dangerous

The law doesn’t just assign liability after the fact — it also sets preventive duties. Article 5, paragraph c), is explicit:

“Conducir necesariamente por cualquier lugar público a los canes con correas cuya extensión y resistencia sean suficientes para asegurar el control sobre ellos. En el caso de canes considerados potencialmente peligrosos, deben conducirse adicionalmente con bozal. La conducción debe realizarla el propietario o cualquier otra persona adulta con capacidad física y mental para ejercer el control adecuado sobre el animal.”

Which breeds count as “potentially dangerous”? The law itself names one directly:

“Considérase a la raza canina, híbrido o cruce de ella con cualquier otra raza del American Pitbull Terrier como potencialmente peligrosa.”

The Ministry of Health can add other breeds to this list by resolution, but the Pitbull — and its crosses — is designated potentially dangerous by the text of the law itself, with no additional resolution needed.

Administrative fines: independent of what’s owed to you

Beyond what the owner owes you as the victim, the municipality can sanction them directly. Article 13 sets three tiers:

“13.1 Son infracciones leves, sancionadas con multa de hasta 0.5 UIT […] 13.2 Son infracciones graves, sancionadas con multa de hasta 1 UIT, las siguientes: a. Conducir a un can por la vía pública sin identificación, sin bozal o sin correa, según sea el caso, o que la utilizada no sea razonablemente suficiente para ejercer su control […] b. No contar con licencia […] 13.3 Son infracciones muy graves, sancionadas con multa de hasta 2 UIT, las siguientes: a. Participar, organizar, promover o difundir las peleas de canes. b. Adiestrar o entrenar canes para pelea o para acrecentar o reforzar su agresividad. c. Abandonar canes considerados potencialmente peligrosos […]”

These fines are imposed by the district or provincial municipality, and are independent of what the owner owes you under articles 1979 and 14: one doesn’t replace the other. Article 14 itself makes this explicit by stating that the obligation to cover your costs applies “independientemente de las sanciones administrativas a que haya lugar.”

Foreigners

These rules apply to incidents that happen in Peru. If you were bitten by a dog here, it doesn’t matter your nationality or the owner’s: article 1979 of the Civil Code and Ley 27596 apply the same way to anyone present in the country.