David C. Barsalou, Attorney at Law, PLLC

David C. Barsalou, Attorney at Law, PLLC David C.

Barsalou, Attorney at Law, PLLC is a results-driven law firm serving clients across Houston, Texas, and New York in matters involving real estate law, family law, business litigation, contract law, tax representation, and mergers and acquisitions

Can You Get Married by Proxy in Texas? The Strange but Narrow Rule Under Texas Family Code §§ 2.006 and 2.203It sounds l...
09/01/2026

Can You Get Married by Proxy in Texas? The Strange but Narrow Rule Under Texas Family Code §§ 2.006 and 2.203

It sounds like something from an old movie.

One person stands at the wedding ceremony. The other person is thousands of miles away. Someone else literally stands in for the missing bride or groom.

Can that actually create a legal marriage in Texas?

Yes—but Texas proxy marriage is much narrower than many people assume.

Texas law distinguishes between being absent when applying for a marriage license and being absent from the marriage ceremony itself. Although Texas permits an adult to assist an absent applicant with the marriage-license process in certain circumstances, actually getting married through a proxy at the ceremony is generally reserved for a very specific class of deployed members of the United States armed forces.

The result is one of the stranger provisions hiding in the Texas Family Code.

Texas Law Allows an “Absent Applicant” for a Marriage License

The first important statute is Texas Family Code § 2.006.

It provides:

“If an applicant who is 18 years of age or older is unable to appear personally before the county clerk to apply for a marriage license, any adult person or the other applicant may apply on behalf of the absent applicant.”

Tex. Fam. Code § 2.006(a). (Texas Statutes)

That sounds extremely broad.

And, for the license application, it is broader than the rule governing the ceremony itself.

The person appearing for the absent applicant must provide the clerk with the absent applicant's notarized affidavit and proof of the absent applicant's identity and age. Tex. Fam. Code § 2.006(b). (Texas Statutes)

Texas therefore recognizes that circumstances may prevent an adult from physically appearing at the county clerk's office.

But this creates an important distinction:

Being an absent applicant for the marriage license does not necessarily mean you can also be absent from your wedding.

Texas Proxy Marriage at the Ceremony Is Much More Limited

The actual marriage ceremony is governed in part by Texas Family Code § 2.203.

Under that statute, a person may assent to marriage through a proxy appointed in the required affidavit only if the absent person falls within the statutory military requirements. The statute limits proxy participation to a member of the United States armed forces who is stationed in another country in support of combat or another military operation and is unable to attend the ceremony. Tex. Fam. Code § 2.203(b). (Texas Statutes)

That limitation matters.

A person ordinarily cannot decide:

“I don't feel like flying back to Texas. My brother will stand in for me.”

Nor does living in another state, being busy at work, being hospitalized, traveling overseas, or simply finding a proxy ceremony more convenient necessarily qualify someone to marry by proxy.

Texas has retained proxy marriage—but in a tightly restricted form.

The Proxy Cannot Simply Be Improvised at the Wedding

Texas law also specifies how the proxy gets appointed.

Under Texas Family Code § 2.007, the affidavit of an absent applicant contains extensive information about the applicant and the proposed marriage. Among other things, it includes the identity of the person the applicant intends to marry, the approximate date of the marriage, and the reason the applicant cannot personally appear.

For purposes of a proxy ceremony, the affidavit must appoint an adult other than the other marriage applicant to act as the proxy. The statute ties that appointment to an absent applicant who:

“is a member of the armed forces of the United States stationed in another country in support of combat or another military operation”

and is unable to attend the ceremony. Tex. Fam. Code § 2.007(8). (Texas Statutes)

So the proxy is not simply a friend who appears at the ceremony and announces that the missing person definitely wants to get married.

The authority comes from the statutory affidavit.

Can Both People Be Absent When Applying for the Marriage License?

Potentially—but here Texas law becomes even more particular.

Section 2.006(c) states that a county clerk generally may not issue a marriage license when both applicants are absent unless the person applying on behalf of each absent applicant provides an affidavit declaring that the applicant is a member of the U.S. armed forces stationed in another country in support of combat or another military operation. (Texas Statutes)

That produces an unusual statutory structure.

Texas recognizes three different situations that should not be confused:

First, both people personally appear for the license and ceremony. That is the ordinary marriage.

Second, one person may qualify as an absent applicant for purposes of obtaining the license under § 2.006.

Third, actually assenting to the marriage through a proxy during the ceremony is subject to the considerably narrower military requirements of § 2.203.

The phrase “proxy marriage” can therefore obscure several legally distinct questions.

Why Does Texas Allow Proxy Marriage at All?

The modern statute is easy to understand in its military context.

Imagine a service member stationed overseas who intends to marry but cannot return to the United States for the ceremony. Requiring physical presence could delay the marriage indefinitely because of circumstances largely outside the service member's control.

Texas law provides a mechanism through which the service member's consent can be formally documented and exercised through another adult.

The arrangement is unusual, but the underlying legal concept is not.

Marriage requires consent.

Texas law ordinarily expresses that consent through the parties' participation in a ceremony. The proxy statute creates a narrow mechanism for one qualifying person to manifest that consent without physically standing in the room.

Does the Proxy Become Married to Anyone?

No.

This may sound obvious, but it illustrates what the proxy is actually doing.

The proxy is not temporarily becoming one of the spouses. The proxy is acting on behalf of the absent applicant for purposes of participating in the ceremony.

The marriage is between the two people identified as the applicants.

The person standing at the ceremony is merely the legally authorized substitute through whom the absent applicant assents.

In other words, if John appoints Robert as his proxy so John can marry Mary, Robert does not briefly marry Mary on John's behalf.

John marries Mary.

Robert merely has an exceptionally strange assignment that afternoon.

Is a Proxy Marriage the Same as an Informal or Common-Law Marriage?

No.

Texas recognizes informal marriage under an entirely different portion of the Family Code. A valid informal marriage may arise when statutory requirements concerning agreement, cohabitation, and representation to others are satisfied.

A proxy marriage, by contrast, involves a marriage license and formal ceremony in which a properly appointed proxy participates for a qualifying absent applicant.

The doctrines solve entirely different problems.

One concerns whether conduct between two people can establish a marriage without a traditional ceremonial marriage.

The other concerns whether a person who cannot physically attend a ceremony can nevertheless participate in that ceremony through a legally authorized substitute.

What If the Couple Does Not Follow the Proxy Requirements?

This is where anyone contemplating an unusual marriage arrangement should be careful.

Marriage affects far more than whether two people may call themselves spouses.

Marital status can affect:

• community and separate property;

• inheritance;

• homestead rights;

• retirement benefits;

• insurance;

• taxes;

• divorce jurisdiction;

• spousal maintenance;

• creditor rights; and

• the characterization and division of property when the relationship ends.

A defective marriage procedure can therefore create a much larger dispute years later.

The worst time to discover uncertainty about whether a marriage was legally created is after someone dies, property has substantially appreciated, or one supposed spouse files for divorce.

Proxy Marriage Can Become a Probate Issue Too

This is one reason an obscure family-law rule can suddenly matter in probate litigation.

Suppose a person dies owning substantial property and another person claims to be the surviving spouse.

Whether the marriage was valid may determine rights involving the homestead, community property, inheritance, estate administration, and other benefits of surviving-spouse status.

If the claimed marriage involved an unusual ceremony with an absent participant, questions about the license, affidavit, proxy appointment, and statutory requirements can become extremely important.

What looked like a wedding technicality may become an estate dispute worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Do You Have to Be in Texas to Get Married Under Texas Law?

The more useful question is not simply where someone happens to be located.

It is whether the requirements of Texas law for the particular marriage procedure have been satisfied.

Texas law expressly contemplates an absent applicant during the licensing process. It also expressly contemplates a qualifying military member assenting through a proxy during the ceremony.

But those provisions should not be stretched into a general rule that Texas permits anyone to marry remotely.

It does not.

Can You Have a Zoom Wedding in Texas?

A video call creates a different question from statutory proxy marriage.

Seeing someone on a screen is not automatically the same legal mechanism as appearing through a proxy authorized under § 2.203. Nor should couples assume that technology eliminates statutory requirements concerning licenses, ceremonies, officiants, or participation.

Texas marriage statutes were not written simply to ask whether everyone could see and hear one another.

They establish legal requirements for creating the marital relationship.

Someone contemplating a remote, proxy, international, or otherwise unconventional ceremony should determine before the wedding whether the proposed procedure satisfies Texas law.

The Bottom Line

Yes, proxy marriage still exists in Texas.

But it is not a general alternative to attending your own wedding.

Texas Family Code § 2.006 permits an adult to use an absent-applicant procedure for obtaining a marriage license under specified conditions. Texas Family Code §§ 2.007 and 2.203 impose substantially narrower requirements when an absent person actually wants another adult to serve as a proxy at the marriage ceremony. (Texas Statutes)

For the ceremony itself, the modern Texas proxy-marriage provision is essentially a specialized accommodation for qualifying members of the United States armed forces stationed abroad in support of combat or another military operation.

It is a wonderfully strange corner of family law because the concept sounds almost medieval:

You can, under limited circumstances, send another person to stand at your wedding for you.

But behind the oddity is a serious legal point.

Marriage is a legal status with enormous consequences, and Texas law cares not merely whether two people intended to be married, but how that marital status was created.

For couples considering an unconventional ceremony—and particularly when military service, international travel, property, or estate-planning concerns are involved—getting the procedure right at the beginning can prevent a much more difficult legal dispute later.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Marriage validity can depend on the particular facts, documents, ceremony, and applicable law.

What Can a Sheriff or Constable Actually Take Under a Writ of Ex*****on in Texas? Understanding Levy, Seizure, and Sale ...
08/31/2026

What Can a Sheriff or Constable Actually Take Under a Writ of Ex*****on in Texas? Understanding Levy, Seizure, and Sale After Judgment

Winning a lawsuit and obtaining a money judgment does not necessarily mean the winning party immediately gets paid.

A judgment establishes that money is owed. Collecting that money can be an entirely separate process.

One of the oldest methods of enforcing a judgment is the writ of ex*****on. In appropriate circumstances, a sheriff or constable can use a writ to levy on property belonging to the judgment debtor and sell that property to satisfy the judgment.

That sounds alarming—and sometimes it is.

But a writ of ex*****on does not mean that a constable can simply walk into someone's house and take anything valuable.

Texas has unusually significant protections for certain property. The practical question is therefore not simply whether the creditor has a writ.

It is:

Does the judgment debtor own property that is actually subject to ex*****on?

What Is a Writ of Ex*****on?

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 621 provides:

“The judgments of the district, county, and justice courts shall be enforced by ex*****on or other appropriate process.”

Tex. R. Civ. P. 621. (Texas Courts)

Rule 622 explains that an ex*****on is process issued by the court and provides that the writ is addressed to any sheriff or constable within Texas rather than merely to an officer in a particular county. Tex. R. Civ. P. 622. (Texas Courts)

In simplified terms, a writ of ex*****on takes the creditor from:

“The court says this person owes me money.”

to:

“I am now attempting to enforce that judgment against property belonging to the debtor.”

The Texas Judicial Branch identifies the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure currently posted on its website as having been last amended July 1, 2026. (Texas Courts)

What Does It Mean to “Levy” on Property?

The word levy appears frequently in judgment-collection law.

A levy generally refers to an officer taking the legal steps necessary to subject particular property to the writ of ex*****on.

The property can then potentially be sold, with the proceeds applied toward the judgment.

Chapter 34 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code contains additional rules governing ex*****on on judgments, including seizure, recovery of seized property, ex*****on sales, and the handling of proceeds. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

This is an important distinction:

The creditor ordinarily does not personally seize the debtor's television, vehicle, equipment, or other property.

Ex*****on is accomplished through legal process and the sheriff or constable charged with carrying out the writ.

A Writ of Ex*****on Does Not Make Exempt Property Fair Game

This is probably the most important point for Texas judgment debtors.

Texas law exempts substantial categories of property from creditors.

Texas Property Code § 42.001 provides that qualifying personal property is exempt from:

“garnishment, attachment, ex*****on, or other seizure”

subject to the requirements of Chapter 42.

For a family, qualifying personal property described by the statute is generally protected up to an aggregate fair-market value of $100,000, excluding liens and other encumbrances.

For a single adult who is not a member of a family, the corresponding limit is $50,000. Tex. Prop. Code § 42.001(a). (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

Those are substantial exemptions.

But there is another important limitation: the exemption does not apply to every conceivable piece of personal property simply because the debtor's total possessions are worth less than $50,000 or $100,000.

The property generally must fall within the categories Texas law protects.

What Types of Personal Property Does Texas Protect?

Texas Property Code § 42.002 identifies categories of personal property eligible for the exemption.

They include such ordinary items as home furnishings, provisions for consumption, clothing, jewelry within a statutory limitation, tools and equipment used in a trade or profession, certain athletic and sporting equipment, and a limited number of motor vehicles.

The statute also protects specified animals and forage, including certain horses, mules, donkeys, cattle, livestock, and household pets.

Texas exemption law can therefore protect a surprisingly large portion of the property found in an ordinary household. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

That does not mean every vehicle, piece of equipment, investment, collectible, or luxury item is automatically exempt.

Whether particular property is protected can depend upon the statutory category, its value, the debtor's family status, ownership, liens, and other circumstances.

Current Wages Receive Separate Protection

Texas also provides significant protection for current wages.

Section 42.001(b) separately exempts:

“current wages for personal services”

except for enforcement of court-ordered child support payments.

Professionally prescribed health aids and certain support or maintenance payments also receive protection outside the ordinary aggregate limits. Tex. Prop. Code § 42.001(b). (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

This is one reason collecting an ordinary consumer or commercial judgment against an individual in Texas can sometimes be much harder than obtaining the judgment itself.

A debtor may have income and ordinary possessions without having much property that an ordinary judgment creditor can seize.

What About the Debtor's House?

Texas homestead law creates another major obstacle for many judgment creditors.

A qualifying Texas homestead receives powerful protection from forced sale for ordinary debts, subject to constitutionally and statutorily recognized exceptions.

Texas Property Code Chapter 41 governs interests in land that are exempt from seizure, while § 41.002 defines the permitted extent of an urban or rural homestead. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

This means that obtaining a $100,000 judgment against someone who owns a $400,000 house does not, standing alone, necessarily mean the creditor can have the sheriff sell the house and collect $100,000 from the proceeds.

Whether the property qualifies as a homestead—and whether the particular debt falls within an exception to homestead protection—matters enormously.

Can a Creditor Take a Car?

Possibly, but this is another area where the Texas exemptions matter.

Texas law includes motor vehicles within its protected personal-property categories, subject to statutory limitations.

Consequently, the fact that a debtor owns and drives a vehicle does not automatically mean an ordinary judgment creditor can seize it under ex*****on.

On the other hand, a debtor who owns multiple valuable vehicles, valuable recreational property, business assets outside the statutory exemptions, or other nonexempt property may present a very different collection picture.

The details matter.

What About Cash in a Bank Account?

This illustrates why ex*****on, garnishment, and turnover proceedings should not be confused.

A writ of ex*****on is one collection mechanism.

A writ of garnishment can be used in appropriate circumstances to reach property or money held by a third party—most commonly money held by a bank.

A turnover proceeding under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 31.002 provides another mechanism for reaching certain property that cannot readily be attached or levied on by ordinary legal process.

Texas judgment creditors therefore have multiple potential collection tools.

A creditor may use post-judgment discovery to determine what the debtor owns and then select the collection procedure that fits the particular asset.

The Sheriff Cannot Sell Property That Belongs to Someone Else Merely Because It Is Nearby

Another practical problem arises when the debtor lives with other people.

Suppose a judgment debtor lives with a spouse, parent, roommate, or adult child.

The house contains televisions, computers, furniture, jewelry, tools, and vehicles.

That does not automatically mean everything at the address belongs to the judgment debtor.

Ownership matters.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 34 expressly recognizes disputes concerning property seized under ex*****on and provides procedures relating to the recovery of seized property. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

This can become particularly important when property belonging to a third party is mistakenly treated as property of the judgment debtor.

Receipts, titles, account records, purchase records, and other evidence of ownership may become important when ownership is disputed.

Transferring Property After Judgment Can Create New Problems

A debtor should also resist the temptation to respond to a judgment by suddenly transferring assets to friends or relatives.

Putting a vehicle in a sibling's name, transferring money to a spouse, or “selling” valuable property for $1 does not necessarily make the collection problem disappear.

Fraudulent-transfer law can permit creditors to challenge transfers made under circumstances prohibited by law.

Chapter 34 itself also recognizes situations involving property that the judgment debtor has sold, mortgaged, or conveyed in trust. For example, § 34.004 addresses ex*****on involving property conveyed to a third party and circumstances in which other property of the debtor is identified for satisfaction of the ex*****on. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

Trying to become artificially judgment-proof after losing a lawsuit can therefore create considerably more litigation.

What Happens After Property Is Seized?

Levy is not necessarily the end of the process.

Property subject to ex*****on may ultimately be sold pursuant to the applicable ex*****on procedures. The proceeds are then applied as permitted by law toward the amounts owed.

The important practical point is that the creditor generally receives money—not the debtor's random possessions as trophies.

The purpose of ex*****on is satisfaction of the judgment.

And even a successful ex*****on sale may not satisfy the entire debt.

If a debtor owes $80,000 and ex*****on against nonexempt property ultimately produces only $12,000 available toward the judgment after applicable costs and priorities, the existence of the writ does not magically manufacture the remaining $68,000.

Collection depends upon the assets legally available for collection.

A Judgment Does Not Mean the Debtor Has Collectible Property

This is perhaps the greatest misconception about civil judgments.

Imagine that a plaintiff obtains a $75,000 judgment against an individual.

The debtor lives in a qualifying homestead, drives an ordinary vehicle, owns normal household furnishings and clothing, receives wages from employment, and has little else.

The plaintiff has unquestionably won the lawsuit.

But the plaintiff may discover that winning and collecting are two very different things.

Texas exemption laws can leave an ordinary judgment creditor with relatively few assets immediately available for ex*****on.

That does not erase the judgment. Other collection procedures may be available, interest may accrue, circumstances may change, and nonexempt property may later be discovered.

But a writ of ex*****on is only as useful as the property legally available for ex*****on.

Judgment Creditors Can Use Post-Judgment Discovery to Find Assets

A creditor does not necessarily have to guess what the debtor owns.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 621a permits post-judgment discovery while an enforceable judgment remains unsuspended and has not become dormant.

The successful party can use discovery procedures to obtain information that may aid enforcement of the judgment. (Texas Courts)

That can make post-judgment discovery extremely important.

Before spending money trying to levy on property, a creditor may want to know:

Does the debtor own real estate?

Does the debtor own multiple vehicles?

Does the debtor own business equipment?

Does the debtor have interests in companies?

Where does the debtor bank?

Does the debtor own valuable nonexempt personal property?

Has the debtor recently transferred assets?

The answers can determine whether ex*****on, garnishment, turnover proceedings, or some other strategy makes sense.

Ex*****on Is Only One Piece of Texas Judgment Collection

Texas law gives judgment creditors several different enforcement tools, and they should not be treated as interchangeable.

A writ of ex*****on allows enforcement against property subject to ex*****on.

A writ of garnishment can potentially reach property held by a third party.

An abstract of judgment can create a judgment lien against qualifying nonexempt real property when the statutory requirements are satisfied.

A turnover proceeding can potentially reach nonexempt property that cannot readily be attached or levied upon by ordinary legal process.

And post-judgment discovery can help the creditor figure out which of those tools may actually work.

The existence of several collection mechanisms is important because a debtor who has nothing useful to seize under a writ of ex*****on may nevertheless own other nonexempt assets that can be reached through a different procedure.

The Bottom Line

A writ of ex*****on is a powerful Texas judgment-enforcement tool, but its power has limits.

The sheriff or constable is not given unlimited authority to take everything the judgment debtor owns.

Texas law protects qualifying homesteads, substantial categories of personal property, current wages, and other exempt assets. The officer's ability to levy therefore depends heavily on what the debtor owns and whether that particular property is legally subject to ex*****on.

For creditors, obtaining a judgment may only be the beginning of the collection process.

For debtors, receiving a writ of ex*****on does not necessarily mean losing a house, car, furniture, or paycheck.

The real question is much narrower:

What nonexempt property does the debtor actually own that Texas law permits the creditor to reach?

That question often determines whether a writ of ex*****on produces meaningful payment—or simply confirms that a judgment is easier to obtain than to collect.

*****on

When Are You Legally Responsible for Your Dog in Texas? Understanding Dog Bites, Injuries, and Owner LiabilityDogs are p...
08/28/2026

When Are You Legally Responsible for Your Dog in Texas? Understanding Dog Bites, Injuries, and Owner Liability

Dogs are part of millions of American households.

Most dogs will never seriously injure anyone. But even an ordinarily friendly dog can bite when frightened, escape through an open gate, knock someone to the ground, chase a bicyclist, or otherwise cause an accident.

When that happens, an obvious legal question follows:

Is the dog's owner responsible?

The answer under Texas law is not always as simple as people assume.

Texas does not impose automatic liability on a dog owner every time a dog causes an injury. Depending on the circumstances, however, an owner may potentially face liability under several different legal theories.

The dog's previous behavior may matter. So may the owner's knowledge, the way the dog was being handled or restrained, local animal-control ordinances, the conduct of the injured person, and exactly how the injury occurred.

Texas also has separate statutory provisions governing dogs legally considered "dangerous."

Understanding these distinctions can help dog owners—and people injured by dogs—understand when an unfortunate accident may become a legal problem.

Does Texas Have a "One-Bite Rule"?

People sometimes describe Texas as following a "one-bite rule."

That description can be misleading.

Texas common law recognizes a strict-liability theory when a domestic animal has dangerous characteristics and its owner knows or has reason to know about them.

The leading Texas Supreme Court case is Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974). Interestingly, that case did not involve a dog. It involved a vicious boar hog that repeatedly escaped onto a neighbor's property and eventually attacked him.

The Texas Supreme Court explained the distinction between liability involving an animal known to have dangerous propensities and liability based upon negligent handling of an animal. (vLex)

The principle has subsequently been applied in dog cases.

Accordingly, the law does not necessarily give every dog a literal "free first bite."

A previous bite can obviously provide powerful evidence that an owner knew the dog was dangerous. But a prior bite is not necessarily the only way dangerous tendencies can become apparent.

A dog's prior behavior and the owner's knowledge of that behavior can therefore become extremely important.

When Can a Dog Owner Be Strictly Liable?

Texas courts recognize that the owner of a domestic animal may face strict liability when the animal possesses dangerous or vicious characteristics that are abnormal for its class and the owner knows or has reason to know about those characteristics.

In the dog context, courts have described a strict-liability claim as involving evidence that:

• the dog had a vicious, dangerous, or mischievous nature;

• the owner actually or constructively knew about those characteristics; and

• the injury resulted from the dangerous propensity of which the owner had knowledge. (Justia Law)

Suppose, for example, that a dog has repeatedly attacked people, aggressively charged visitors, or previously bitten someone.

Those facts could potentially become evidence that the dog's owner knew or should have known that the animal presented a danger.

This is the origin of the popular "one-bite rule."

But the actual inquiry is generally about dangerous propensities and knowledge, not simply counting bites.

What If the Dog Has Never Bitten Anyone Before?

This is where the distinction between strict liability and negligence becomes particularly important.

The absence of a previous bite does not necessarily mean that the owner can never be liable.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed this issue in Bushnell v. Mott, 254 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. 2008).

In that case, a woman arrived at another woman's home to deliver products. When the homeowner opened the door, three dogs rushed out and attacked the visitor.

The Texas Supreme Court distinguished strict liability for a vicious animal from liability for negligent handling of an animal that was not previously known to be vicious. The Court held that an owner can have a duty to exercise reasonable care once an attack begins even without prior knowledge that the dog had dangerous propensities. (Justia Law)

That distinction is important.

"My dog has never bitten anyone before" does not necessarily end the legal analysis.

What Is Negligent Handling of a Dog?

A negligence claim focuses on the owner's conduct rather than merely the dog's history.

Generally speaking, negligence involves a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach.

Texas courts recognize that dog owners can, under appropriate circumstances, have a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent their animals from injuring others. (Texas Courts)

The particular facts matter enormously.

For example, questions could arise concerning whether an owner:

• failed to properly restrain a dog under circumstances requiring restraint;

• allowed a dog to escape despite knowing of circumstances indicating that it could cause harm;

• failed to exercise reasonable control over the animal;

• opened a door or gate under circumstances creating a foreseeable risk; or

• failed to take reasonable action after seeing that the dog was attacking someone.

A negligence case therefore does not necessarily depend upon proving that the dog had previously bitten somebody.

Does the Dog Actually Have to Bite Someone?

No.

This is another reason it can be misleading to think of this entire area as simply "dog-bite law."

Dogs can cause injuries without biting anyone.

Imagine a large dog runs toward an elderly visitor and knocks the person down. Or a loose dog chases a bicyclist, causing the bicyclist to crash. A pedestrian might fall while trying to avoid a charging dog.

The important legal questions concern the applicable theory of liability, the owner's duties and knowledge, causation, and damages.

The fact that the dog's teeth never touched the injured person does not necessarily mean that no claim can exist.

What If Your Dog Gets Out of the Yard?

A dog escaping from its owner's property does not automatically make the owner liable for everything that subsequently happens.

But the circumstances surrounding the escape can matter.

Was the gate knowingly left open?

Was the fence obviously inadequate?

Had the dog repeatedly escaped before?

Was the owner aware that the dog tended to chase pedestrians, animals, bicycles, or vehicles?

Was there an applicable city or county ordinance requiring the dog to be restrained?

These kinds of facts may affect whether the owner's conduct was reasonable and whether the resulting injury was foreseeable.

Texas is a large state, and local animal-control laws can vary. Dog owners therefore should not assume that state law is the only law governing how their animals must be kept.

What If Your Dog Causes a Car or Bicycle Accident?

An animal-related injury does not have to look like a traditional animal attack.

Suppose a dog escapes from a yard and runs into a roadway. A driver swerves to avoid it and strikes another vehicle.

Or a dog begins chasing a cyclist, who loses control and suffers serious injuries.

Those situations can present questions of ordinary negligence and causation even though nobody was bitten.

The injured person would still have to establish the elements of the particular claim. Merely showing that a dog was somewhere near an accident does not automatically establish liability.

But an owner's failure to exercise legally required or reasonable control over an animal can potentially become important evidence.

What If Someone Provokes the Dog?

The conduct of the injured person can matter too.

Dog cases do not exist in a vacuum.

A person who intentionally antagonizes an animal, disregards warnings, trespasses, or otherwise contributes to the circumstances producing an injury may present a very different case from an invited guest unexpectedly attacked while walking to the front door.

The effect of the injured person's conduct depends on the legal theory asserted and the particular facts.

Texas also generally uses a proportionate-responsibility system in negligence cases, meaning that responsibility for an injury may potentially be divided among multiple responsible parties rather than treated as an all-or-nothing question.

Accordingly, determining that a dog owner acted negligently does not necessarily answer every question concerning liability or damages.

What Is a "Dangerous Dog" Under Texas Law?

Texas law also creates a separate statutory framework for certain dangerous dogs under Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.

This is important because being legally classified as the owner of a dangerous dog can create obligations beyond the ordinary rules governing civil lawsuits.

Chapter 822 establishes procedures through which animal-control authorities and courts can make dangerous-dog determinations.

Once an owner learns that the person owns a dangerous dog, Texas law generally requires the owner, within the statutory deadline, to take specific steps. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

These include requirements concerning registration and restraint.

Does a Dangerous Dog Require Liability Insurance?

Texas Health and Safety Code § 822.042 generally requires an owner of a dangerous dog to obtain liability insurance coverage or demonstrate financial responsibility of at least $100,000 to cover damages resulting from an attack by the dangerous dog that causes bodily injury to a person.

The statute also generally requires the dog to be restrained on a leash in the immediate control of a person or kept in a secure enclosure, as well as compliance with applicable municipal or county regulations. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

Failure to comply can have serious consequences.

Chapter 822 provides procedures for seizure and, under certain circumstances, destruction of a dangerous dog when the statutory requirements are not satisfied.

This statutory system is separate from the question of whether an injured person can recover civil damages from the owner.

Can Local Cities and Counties Have Their Own Dog Rules?

Yes.

This can be one of the most important practical issues in an animal-related dispute.

Texas statutes do not necessarily occupy the entire field of animal regulation. Municipalities and counties may have applicable animal-control rules concerning matters such as restraint, registration, dangerous animals, and related requirements.

Indeed, the state dangerous-dog statute expressly requires compliance with applicable municipal or county regulations as part of the obligations imposed upon owners of dangerous dogs. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

Consequently, determining whether a dog owner violated the law may require examining more than the Texas statutes.

The ordinance applicable where the incident occurred may matter too.

What If Someone Else Was Watching the Dog?

Ownership is important, but it may not always be the end of the analysis.

A dog might be in the custody of:

• a family member;

• a friend;

• a pet sitter;

• a boarding facility;

• a dog walker; or

• another person temporarily responsible for controlling the animal.

Depending upon the circumstances, questions can arise concerning who possessed or controlled the dog, who knew about its behavior, who had the ability and responsibility to restrain it, and whose conduct actually caused the injury.

The mere fact that a person's name appears on veterinary records does not necessarily resolve every potential liability issue arising from another person's handling of the animal.

What If a Tenant's Dog Injures Someone?

Dog incidents can also create issues beyond the relationship between the dog's owner and the injured person.

Suppose a tenant keeps a dangerous dog at a rental property and the dog attacks someone.

Questions may arise concerning the tenant's responsibility, the landlord's knowledge, control over the premises, lease provisions, prior complaints, and the particular circumstances of the incident.

A landlord is not automatically liable simply because an injury occurs at rental property the landlord owns.

As with many premises-related disputes, control and knowledge can become extremely important.

The particular facts and applicable law must therefore be examined before assuming that either the tenant or landlord—or both—can be held responsible.

Can a Dog Owner Face Consequences Other Than a Civil Lawsuit?

Yes.

Civil liability is only one potential consequence of a serious dog incident.

Depending upon the circumstances, Texas statutes and local ordinances can provide for animal-control proceedings, registration requirements, restraint requirements, seizure, impoundment, and other consequences.

The state also regulates how dogs may be restrained outdoors. Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 821, for example, imposes requirements concerning unattended outdoor restraints and prohibits certain methods of restraint. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

Accordingly, a dog incident can potentially produce several different legal proceedings involving different standards and consequences.

A lawsuit seeking money damages is not the same thing as an animal-control proceeding concerning the dog itself.

What Damages Can Result From a Dog-Related Injury?

When a dog owner is legally liable for an injury, the damages depend upon the nature and extent of the loss and the applicable cause of action.

A serious attack can potentially involve substantial medical treatment, scarring, lost income, physical impairment, pain, and other damages recognized under Texas law.

Property damage may present a different measure of damages.

And some incidents that initially appear minor can become expensive quickly.

A dog bite that requires emergency treatment, for example, can lead to questions involving infection, vaccination history, follow-up care, scarring, and additional medical treatment.

The existence and amount of recoverable damages remain matters that must be established rather than presumed merely because an incident occurred.

Does Homeowners or Renters Insurance Cover Dog Liability?

Sometimes.

Many homeowners and renters insurance policies provide some form of personal liability coverage, but the existence and scope of coverage depend upon the actual policy.

Exclusions, limitations, policy definitions, the location of the incident, the nature of the conduct, and sometimes the animal's history can affect coverage.

An owner involved in a serious incident should therefore not simply assume either that insurance covers everything or that insurance provides no protection.

The policy itself needs to be reviewed.

An insurer should also generally be notified promptly of a claim or potential claim in accordance with the policy's requirements.

What Should a Dog Owner Do After a Serious Incident?

A serious dog incident should be treated seriously even if everyone involved initially appears calm.

Relevant evidence can disappear quickly.

Witnesses may forget what happened. Surveillance footage may be overwritten. Gates or fences may be repaired. Text messages may be deleted. The dog's vaccination and veterinary records may become important.

The incident may also trigger reporting or animal-control requirements.

For the owner, it can be particularly important to preserve relevant records, comply with lawful animal-control requirements, notify any applicable insurer, and avoid making careless statements about fault or the dog's history before understanding the legal consequences.

The injured person likewise has an interest in documenting the incident and obtaining appropriate medical care.

A Dog's History Matters—but So Does the Owner's Conduct

Texas dog-liability law cannot be reduced to the statement that every dog gets "one free bite."

A dog's previous dangerous behavior and the owner's knowledge of that behavior can be critical when strict liability is alleged.

But Texas law also recognizes negligence principles that can impose liability based upon how an animal was handled—even when the animal was not previously known to be vicious. The Texas Supreme Court made that distinction particularly clear in Bushnell v. Mott. (Justia Law)

And once a dog falls within Texas's statutory dangerous-dog framework, the owner can face specific registration, restraint, financial-responsibility, and local-compliance requirements. (Texas Constitution and Statutes)

The result therefore depends heavily upon the facts.

What did the dog do?

What did the owner know?

What precautions were taken?

Was the dog properly controlled?

Did anyone else contribute to the incident?

Were state statutes or local ordinances violated?

Those questions matter far more than simply asking whether the dog had ever bitten anyone before.

For Texas dog owners, the practical lesson is straightforward: owning an animal includes a responsibility to take reasonable precautions when circumstances indicate that the animal could injure someone.

And when a serious incident does occur, determining legal responsibility may require looking at common-law liability, negligence principles, state statutes, local ordinances, insurance coverage, and the particular facts surrounding the event.

Address

3234 Glade Springs Drive
Humble, TX
77339

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 6:30pm
Tuesday 9am - 6:30pm
Wednesday 9am - 6:30pm
Thursday 9am - 6:30pm
Friday 9am - 6:30pm
Saturday 10am - 3:30pm

Telephone

+17133974678

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when David C. Barsalou, Attorney at Law, PLLC posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to David C. Barsalou, Attorney at Law, PLLC:

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category