If you or a loved one has been bitten by a dog, get immediate medical treatment and call 410-486-1800 for immediate help so your case can be directed in the very best direction.
Dog bite cases are special cases and rely upon a specific group of city and county ordinances, state statutory law, state case law, and legal principles that result from specific lawsuits within the state, the common, legal principles resulting from specific lawsuits from throughout the United States, usually as reported in authoritative legal works.
Most states hold a person responsible for their own negligence, intentional conduct, and reckless or outrageous behavior. Keeping a dog that previously bit a person or exhibited a tendency to someday bite a person is called "strict liability". In all state law strict liability states, the dog owner will be held liable upon the additional ground that he was the owner of the dog that inflicted the bite, and without regard to whether he was negligent or anything else. Some strict liability statutes include whoever had custody of the dog as well as its owner, non-bite injuries as well as bites, and provide for additional compensation if the dog previously bit a person. Many dog bite statutes combine concepts of negligence, common law strict liability, and violations of local law.
The usual exceptions to liability are that the victim provoked the dog, was a trespasser, was negligent, consciously assumed the risk of being bitten, or was a canine professional who was deemed to assume the risk. Those exceptions might be written into the statute or added by judicial decisions. The exceptions are different from state to state, and any particular exception might not apply in a specific case.
When the state does not have a strict liability statute
If a state does not have a strict liability statute, that state is a "one-bite state." In "one-bite states," legal responsibility is determined by the following principles:
The first issue is whether the dog previously bit anyone. If so, then the dog owner / custodian is strictly responsible.
If the answer is no, the second issue is whether the dog previously did something that should have put the owner / custodian on notice that the dog was inclined to bite somebody in the future.
If that answer is no, we consider whether the person having custody of the dog at the time of the incident had violated any law pertaining to public health or safety, which was intended to protect people like the victim. An example would be a leash law, but there could be regulations such as those that restrict dogs from being in day care centers are beauty parlors. The violation of such a law would be considered "negligence per se."
If we cannot find negligence per se, we consider whether the accident was caused by negligence. For example, a dog that is habitually mistreated, or sick, or suffering from a painful disease is more likely to bite a person, even if the dog has never done so before. Negligence is a ground for liability in a "one-bite" state.
If the dog owner or custodian is not responsible, then we consider whether anyone else might be liable as a result of their negligence.
When the dog owner does not have insurance
If the dog owner is unable to compensate the victim because of lack of insurance or resources, attorneys consider whether anyone else might be responsible because of their own negligence. An example would be a landlord who knows that a dangerous dog is living with a renter, but fails to do anything to control the dog or its owner.
Statutory strict liability states
Most states impose state law strict liability for dog attacks, making the owner of a dog legally liable to a victim who was bitten by a dog. A dog does not get "one free bite" in a state law strict liability state, and it is unnecessary to prove that the owner or handler was negligent. In some states, the strict liability statute applies to non-bite injuries as well as bites, and to non-owners who have custody, control or a financial interest in the dog (i.e., a "keeper" or "harborer").
The dog bite statutes vary greatly from state to state. A few states have combined strict liability with other legal grounds and/or have put restrictions on their strict liability dog bite statutes. In Pennsylvania and Colorado, for example, the strict liability statute applies to a bite that causes severe injury but not one that causes little injury; further complicating things, the Colorado statute makes the dog owner strictly liable only for "economic losses," not pain, suffering and other non-pecuniary damages, which can be awarded only if the victim can meet the proof requirements of a "one-bite state." In the State of Maine, the strict liability statute applies only to dogs that have been adjudicated or declared to be dangerous. In New York, the strict liability statute covers only medical bills.
Even where the strict liability statute does not apply, almost all of the states hold any person liable for bite and non-bite injuries if he or she was negligent or maintained custody or control of the dog with knowledge that the dog had a dangerous propensity to bite or cause other harm. Furthermore, in most states, the violation of a leash law, prohibition against dogs running at large, or prohibition against dogs trespassing constitutes a form of negligence called "negligence per se." Therefore, if the accident happened in a "one bite state," you need to understand the principles of negligence and must always research the law of your city and county.
Dog Bite Injury Claims
Pet owners are legally responsible for the behavior of their dogs. In most dog-bite cases, the dog's owner will be required to pay for the scarring and disfigurement, pain and suffering, and all medical bills and lost wages associated with a dog attack. Most states have statutes making it difficult for dog owners to avoid liability for injuries caused by dog attacks. Sometimes the person taking care of the dog, often called the boarder, keeper or harborer, may also responsible. Unfortunately, a large number of dog bites cause serious injury to small children.
Scars can be a serious, life-long result of a dog bite. Children are particularly susceptible to bites around the head and face and often suffer disfiguring scarring. Scars are more than physical injuries, also causing emotional injuries and fear. Scars may require plastic surgery which often must wait until the scar matures, usually about a year. In the case of a child, plastic surgery may need to wait until the child is finished growing after puberty. Scarring has a very real impact on self image and can have significant psychological impact.
Register your Dog Bite Complaint
If you or a loved one has suffered from a dog bite, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible lawsuit.
Any dog can bite
Even the cuddliest, fuzziest, sweetest pup can bite if provoked. Most people are bitten by their own dog or one they know. Some owners actually promote aggression in their dogs or allow aggression to go unchecked.
Although media reports and rumors often give the impression that certain breeds of dog are more likely to bite, there is little scientific evidence to support those claims.
From nips to bites to actual attacks, dog bites are a serious problem. Dog bite victims requiring medical attention in the United States number approximately 800,000 annually. Countless more bite injuries go untreated. On average, about a dozen people die each year from dog bite injuries. Fortunately, there are steps we can take to address this problem.
Who's being bitten?
The number of recorded dog bite injuries is significantly higher in children than adults. The elderly and home service providers such as mail carriers and meter readers are also high on the list of frequent dog bite victims. CAUTION: Never leave a baby or child alone with a dog.
What's a dog owner to do?
Carefully select your pet. Puppies should not be obtained on impulse. Before and after selection, your veterinarian is your best source for information about behavior, health and suitability.
Make sure your pet is socialized as a young puppy so it feels at ease around people and other animals. Gradually expose your puppy to a variety of situations under controlled circumstances; continue that exposure on a regular basis as your dog gets older. Don't put your dog in a position where it feels threatened or teased.
Wait until your child is older. Because so many dog bite injuries happen to young children, it is suggested that parents wait to get a dog until children are older than 4 years of age.
Train your dog. The basic commands "sit," "stay," "no," and "come" can be incorporated into fun activities that build a bond of obedience and trust between pets and people. Avoid highly excitable games like wrestling or tug-of-war. Use a leash in public to ensure you are able to control your dog.
Keep your dog healthy. Have your dog vaccinated against rabies and preventable infectious diseases. Parasite control and other health care are important because how your dog feels directly affects how it behaves.
Neuter your pet. The available science suggests neutered dogs may be less likely to bite.
Be a responsible pet owner. License your dog with your community as required. Obey leash laws. If you have a fenced yard, make sure the gates are secure. Dogs are social animals; spending time with your pet is important. Dogs that are frequently left alone have a greater chance of developing behavioral problems. Walk and exercise your dog regularly to keep it healthy and provide mental stimulation.
Be alert. Know your dog. Be alert to signs of illness. Also watch for signs your dog is uncomfortable or behaving aggressively.
How can my family and I avoid being bitten?
Be cautious around strange dogs and treat your own pet with respect. Because children are the most common victims of dog bites, parents and caregivers should:
NEVER leave a baby or small child alone with a dog.
Be alert for potentially dangerous situations.
Teach their children – including toddlers – to be careful around pets.
Children must be taught NOT to approach strange dogs or try to pet dogs by reaching through fences. Teach children to ask permission from the dog's owner before petting the dog.
Other tips that may prevent or stop a dog attack
Don't run past a dog.
Dogs naturally love to chase and catch things. Don't give them a reason to be come excited or aggressive.
Never disturb a dog that's caring for puppies, sleeping or eating.
Never reach through or over a fence to pet a dog.
Dogs can be protective of their territory, and may interpret your action as a threat.
If a dog approaches to sniff you, stay still.
In most cases, the dog will go away when it determines you are not a threat.
If you are threatened by a dog, remain calm.
Don't scream or yell. If you say anything, speak calmly and firmly. Avoid eye contact. Try to stay still until the dog leaves, or back away slowly until the dog is out of sight. Don't turn and run.
If you fall or are knocked to the ground, curl into a ball with your hands over your head and neck. Protect your face.
What should I do if my dog bites someone?
Even if the bite can be explained (e.g., someone stepped on your dog's tail), it's important to take responsibility for your dog's actions by taking these steps:
Restrain the dog immediately. Separate it from the scene of the attack. Confine it.
Check on the victim's condition. Wash wounds with soap and water. Unseen damage can occur with bites, and can lead to complications. Professional medical advice should be sought to evaluate bite wounds and the risk of rabies or other infections. Call 911 if a response by paramedics is required.
Provide important information including your name, address and information about your dog's most recent rabies vaccination. If your dog does not have a current rabies vaccination, it may be necessary to quarantine it or even euthanize it for rabies testing. The person bitten may need to undergo post-exposure prophylaxis.
Comply with local ordinances regarding reporting of dog bites.
Consult your veterinarian for advice about dog behavior that will help prevent similar problems in the future.
IF YOU are bitten
If your own dog bit you, confine it immediately and call your veterinarian to check your dog's vaccination records. Consult with your veterinarian about your dog's aggressive action. Your veterinarian can examine your dog to make sure it is healthy, and can help you with information or training that may prevent more bites.
If someone else's dog bit you, first seek medical treatment for your wound. Next, contact authorities and tell them everything you can about the dog: the owner's name, if you know it; the color and size of the dog; where you encountered the dog; and if, where, and when you've seen it before. These details may help animal-control officers locate the dog. In addition, consider asking your physician if post-exposure rabies prophylaxis may be necessary.
Dogs are wonderful companions. By acting responsibly, owners not only reduce dog bite injuries, but also enhance the relationship they have with their dog.
Never approach an unfamiliar dog, especially one who's tied or confined behind a fence or in a car. © iStock.com
Q: How can I avoid being bitten by a dog?
A: Never approach an unfamiliar dog, especially one who's tied or confined behind a fence or in a car. Don't pet a dog—even your own—without letting him see and sniff you first. Never turn your back to a dog and run away. A dog's natural instinct will be to chase and catch you. Don't disturb a dog while she's sleeping, eating, chewing on a toy, or caring for puppies. Be cautious around strange dogs. Always assume that a dog who doesn't know you may see you as an intruder or a threat.
Q: What should I do if I think a dog may attack?
A: If you are approached by a dog who may attack you, follow these steps:
Resist the impulse to scream and run away.
Remain motionless, hands at your sides, and avoid eye contact with the dog.
Once the dog loses interest in you, slowly back away until he is out of sight.
If the dog does attack, "feed" him your jacket, purse, bicycle, or anything that you can put between yourself and the dog.
If you fall or are knocked to the ground, curl into a ball with your hands over your ears and remain motionless. Try not to scream or roll around.
Q: What should I do if I am bitten by a dog?
A: If you are bitten or attacked by a dog, try not to panic.
Immediately wash the wound thoroughly with soap and warm water.
Contact your physician for additional care and advice.
Report the bite to your local animal care and control agency. Tell the animal control official everything you know about the dog, including his owner's name and the address where he lives. If the dog is a stray, tell the animal control official what the dog looks like, where you saw him, whether you've seen him before, and in which direction he went.
Q: Can children be taught to avoid being bitten by a dog?
A: Yes, just as we teach our children to practice safety in other situations, we can teach them to be safe around dogs. The most important lessons for children to learn are not to chase or tease dogs they know and to avoid dogs they don't know.
Dog Bites and Dog Attacks
According to a recent survey by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention there are more than 74.8 million dogs in the United States. This survey also shows that dogs bite more than 4.7 million people every year - nearly 2% of the population. Children are particularly vulnerable. They comprise more that 70% of dog bite victims, and often are the victims of the more serious injuries from dog bite attacks.
A dog bite attack can be a traumatic experience that may cause severe and long-lasting injuries. If you or a loved one is the victim of a dog bite you should seek immediate medical assistance and contact an experienced dog bite attorney without delay.
What Should You Do After A Dog Bite Attack?
Seek Medical Treatment as Soon as Possible for Your Dog Bite Injuries. Dog bites pose a serious risk for infection and a physician should be contacted immediately for treatment. If the bite from a dog attack is serious and you or a loved one are in immediate medical distress, call an ambulance or go to an emergency room or urgent care facility as quickly as possible.
Identify the Dog That Bit You. You or someone helping you should try to identify the dog that attacked you and determine how the dog owner can be located. The owner's identity is necessary because the owner is the responsible party in dog bite cases, and the owner's home insurance company is usually the entity that pays for the dog bite injuries.
Report the Dog Bite Attack. Report the dog bite attack to the local county animal control agency or the sheriff's department. Provide information about the dog, including the owner's name and address. If the dog was a stray, describe the appearance of the dog and the location of the incident.
Have Photos Taken of the Dog Bite Injuries. As soon as it is practical after the dog bite attack, take photographs of all visible injuries, including wounds and lacerations. Also, take photos of any torn or bloody clothing. If possible make sure pictures are taken of the dog itself and of the site of the attack.
Contact a Reputable and Experienced Dog Bite Attorney. After a dog bite attack you may be facing significant pain, treatments, medical bills, and perhaps pressure from an insurance company to give statements or settle cheaply. Time is of the essence after a dog bite attack. Your chances of success increase dramatically through effective investigation and representation by a skilled dog bite attorney. Prompt action by your dog bite lawyer is necessary to preserve evidence, locate witnesses, and identify defendants. Hiring effective legal representation should therefore not be delayed.
Do Not Give an Insurance Company Information About Your Dog Bite Incident or Injuries, or Sign any Document without Discussing it with Your Attorney. The insurance companies' first interest is protecting themselves from claims. The information you give them can and will be used against you to defeat or minimize your claim. Also, do not attempt to settle the case yourself. You may have a right to certain types of compensation for damages you may not know exist, or not know how to assert. The value of your case, for example, increases as you receive treatments and incur expenses. Dog bite injuries in particular often result in scars requiring surgical procedures. Those treatments can be alleged as damages to increase the value of you dog attack claim. It is important to contact an experienced lawyer as soon as possible after the dog attack. Effective dog bite lawyers can seek full compensation for all of the damages you are entitled to recover.
Who is Liable in a Dog Bite Attack?
The dog bite laws vary from state to state, but all states generally hold dog owners liable for a dog attack if they knowingly kept a dog that had previously bitten someone, or that had shown a dangerous tendency to bite someone. This has come to be known as the "one-free bite" rule because dog owners are shielded from liability if the dog had never bitten anyone or shown any tendency to do so. Almost all states place liability on someone who orders or makes a dog attack another person. In that case the person could also be charged criminally with a battery.
Maryland's Strict Liability Law on Dog Bite Attack Cases
Many states, including Maryland, have enacted statutes (laws that are passed by the legislature) which hold a dog owner liable for a dog bite attack even if the dog has never bitten anyone. This is called strict liability. These types of statutes effectively eliminate the "one-free bite" rule because liability is based upon ownership. It is irrelevant whether the dog bit someone previously or whether the owner knew the dog could be vicious. Under this Maryland law the victim of a dog bite attack only needs to show that:
The dog was owned by the defendant
The dog bite attack occurred on public property or while the victim was lawfully on private property
The victim was injured by an actual bite during the dog attack
The dog caused the injury
Other Responsible Parties in Dog Bite Attacks
Dog Bites and Dog Attacks
According to a recent survey by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention there are more than 74.8 million dogs in the United States. This survey also shows that dogs bite more than 4.7 million people every year - nearly 2% of the population. Children are particularly vulnerable. They comprise more that 70% of dog bite victims, and often are the victims of the more serious injuries from dog bite attacks.
A dog bite attack can be a traumatic experience that may cause severe and long-lasting injuries. If you or a loved one is the victim of a dog bite you should seek immediate medical assistance and contact an experienced dog bite attorney without delay.
What Should You Do After A Dog Bite Attack?
Seek Medical Treatment as Soon as Possible for Your Dog Bite Injuries. Dog bites pose a serious risk for infection and a physician should be contacted immediately for treatment. If the bite from a dog attack is serious and you or a loved one are in immediate medical distress, call an ambulance or go to an emergency room or urgent care facility as quickly as possible.
Identify the Dog That Bit You. You or someone helping you should try to identify the dog that attacked you and determine how the dog owner can be located. The owner's identity is necessary because the owner is the responsible party in dog bite cases, and the owner's home insurance company is usually the entity that pays for the dog bite injuries.
Report the Dog Bite Attack. Report the dog bite attack to the local county animal control agency or the sheriff's department. Provide information about the dog, including the owner's name and address. If the dog was a stray, describe the appearance of the dog and the location of the incident.
Have Photos Taken of the Dog Bite Injuries. As soon as it is practical after the dog bite attack, take photographs of all visible injuries, including wounds and lacerations. Also, take photos of any torn or bloody clothing. If possible make sure pictures are taken of the dog itself and of the site of the attack.
Contact a Reputable and Experienced Dog Bite Attorney. After a dog bite attack you may be facing significant pain, treatments, medical bills, and perhaps pressure from an insurance company to give statements or settle cheaply. Time is of the essence after a dog bite attack. Your chances of success increase dramatically through effective investigation and representation by a skilled dog bite attorney. Prompt action by your dog bite lawyer is necessary to preserve evidence, locate witnesses, and identify defendants. Hiring effective legal representation should therefore not be delayed.
Do Not Give an Insurance Company Information About Your Dog Bite Incident or Injuries, or Sign any Document without Discussing it with Your Attorney. The insurance companies' first interest is protecting themselves from claims. The information you give them can and will be used against you to defeat or minimize your claim. Also, do not attempt to settle the case yourself. You may have a right to certain types of compensation for damages you may not know exist, or not know how to assert. The value of your case, for example, increases as you receive treatments and incur expenses. Dog bite injuries in particular often result in scars requiring surgical procedures. Those treatments can be alleged as damages to increase the value of you dog attack claim. It is important to contact an experienced lawyer as soon as possible after the dog attack. Effective dog bite lawyers can seek full compensation for all of the damages you are entitled to recover.
Who is Liable in a Dog Bite Attack?
The dog bite laws vary from state to state, but all states generally hold dog owners liable for a dog attack if they knowingly kept a dog that had previously bitten someone, or that had shown a dangerous tendency to bite someone. This has come to be known as the "one-free bite" rule because dog owners are shielded from liability if the dog had never bitten anyone or shown any tendency to do so. Almost all states place liability on someone who orders or makes a dog attack another person. In that case the person could also be charged criminally with a battery.
The dog was owned by the defendant
The dog bite attack occurred on public property or while the victim was lawfully on private property
The victim was injured by an actual bite during the dog attack
The dog caused the injury
Other Responsible Parties in Dog Bite Attacks
Dog Keeper or Caretaker as Potential Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. Maryland laws make the "owner of any dog" liable, but what happens when the dog is under the control of someone else at the time of the dog bite attack? In this situation the keeper or caretaker of the dog can also be liable, but not under strict liability. In contrast to an owner, a keeper must have prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities before the keeper can be held liable. If the keeper knows that the dog has previously been involved in a dog bite attack this would qualify as "prior knowledge." Having that knowledge makes him liable.
Liability in the above dog bite situation is based on a "common law" theory (discussed below), similar to the "one-free bite" rule. A keeper might also be liable in a dog bite attack if the keeper was negligent in handling or controlling the dog.
Landlords As Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. Landlords can be held liable for a victim's injuries in a dog bite attack in some circumstances. Although sometimes it can be difficult to prove, a landlord must 1) have knowledge of the dangerous propensities of a tenant's dog, and 2) have the right to remove the dog from the premises.
Residential Property Owners as Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. If the property in question is residential, the landlord does not have a duty to inspect for the existence of a dangerous dog. The landlord must have actual knowledge of the presence of a vicious dog. If a dangerous dog escapes from the landlord's property due to defects (such as a hole in a fence), then the landlord could also be liable for off-site injuries caused in a dog bite attack.
Commercial Property Owners as Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. In the case of commercial properties, the landlord has a stringent duty to inspect the premises in order to discover any dangerous conditions, including a vicious dog. For example, if a commercial tenant is running a business on the property and the tenant's dog bites a customer, the landlord may be liable. The landlord cannot avoid liability by claiming that he or she had no knowledge of the dog, because the landlord has a duty to inspect his commercial properties.
Depending upon the particular facts of the case, there may be other potential defendants in a dog bite attack case, such as day care centers and home owner associations. Identifying all responsible parties in a dog bite attack case is critical to a successful lawsuit, especially if the dog owner is unable to fully compensate the victim. A competent dog bite attorney will be able to investigate the facts surrounding the dog attack and determine the appropriate parties who may be responsible for the victim's dog bite injuries. The diligence of the dog bite lawyer will help increase the chances that the injured victim will be compensated from all available sources.
Defenses under Maryland's Law in Dog Bite Attacks
The owner, the landlord and others can defend themselves and avoid liability under certain circumstances. When these circumstances arise it is essential to be represented by a competent dog bite attorney to ensure that the defenses raised do not derail your case. Following are several defenses that can be raised by a defendant to avoid liability:
A person is legally on private property if their presence is allowed by law, such as a mail carrier or emergency service personnel, or if there was an invitation from the property owner. Normally a social guest is legally on someone's property while the guest is trying to find out if the owner is at home (for example, while ringing the door bell or walking up a driveway to see if the owner's car is in the garage).
A guest however cannot ignore the customary formalities. Entering through a gate or door without permission becomes a trespass. For example, in one case a child was properly on the dog owner's property but was told to stay out of the backyard. The child opened a gate and was bitten by a dog after entering the backyard. Despite her age, the court held the child was a trespasser and the property owner was not liable.
Where the Injury Is Not a Dog Bite. Under the Maryland law, a dog owner is liable for a dog attack only when the injury is the result of an actual bite. Although the injury must be caused by the action of a dog bite, the skin does not have to broken. For example, if the dog attack victim is bruised or suffered nerve damage without the presence of actual puncture wounds, the dog owner would still be liable. There are cases where non-bite injuries have occurred after a dog jumped on or knocked over a victim. In such cases the dog owner is not responsible under Maryland's strict liability law, but may be liable under other theories of recovery, such as negligence.
Assumption Of The Risk As a Defense in Dog Bite Attacks. The actions of the dog bite victim prior to the dog attack are also important in determining whether a dog owner will be held liable. Even if the victim is lawfully on private property, the dog owner is not liable if the dog bite victim kicked, teased, or otherwise provoked the dog. In such instances a dog owner may raise the defense that the victim invited the injury by her conduct and therefore assumed the risk of the dog attack. The key factors are the dog bite victim's knowledge and appreciation of the danger and a voluntary acceptance of the risk of being bitten.
The defense of assumption of the risk in dog bite also applies when someone assumes control or possession of the dog. For example, veterinarians and their assistants have assumed the risk of being bitten while treating a dog in their possession and control, as do others such as dog trainers, groomers, house sitters, kennel staff, and handlers.
Children Below the Age of Five. There are special rules for some children in dog bite and other personal injury cases. As a matter of law, children under the age of five are considered incapable of negligent acts, such as provoking a dog. The courts reason that children of that age are not legally capable of acting with reasonable care towards an animal.
Other Theories of Dog Bite Liability
As discussed above, there are various situations in which the victim of a dog bite attack may not be able to recover under Maryland's dog bite law. In such cases there are other legal theories that a competent lawyer might use to hold a dog owner liable for a victim's dog bite injuries. The aid of an experienced dog bite lawyer is essential in presenting the proper legal claims because they are based on the unique facts of each individual dog bite attack. Several of those theories are briefly discussed below:
Common Law in Dog Bite Attack Liability. Common law liability is based on the dog owner's knowledge of his or her dog's dangerousness. This is essentially the same as the one free-bite rule. To establish this type of liability it must be shown that the dog had vicious tendencies, such as a prior bite or other vicious behavior, and that the dog owner knew it. Maryland's law has essentially replaced this common law action as applied to dog owners. However, common law is very useful in establishing liability against a keeper who is in control of the dog at the time of the attack, and had knowledge of the dog's viciousness.
Negligence In Dog Bite Attacks. A dog owner or keeper can also be held liable by a victim's dog bite injuries if the owner or keeper is negligent in the handling of the dog at the time of the dog attack. All that the dog bite victim needs to show is that the dog owner or handler was not reasonably careful in handling or controlling the dog, and that the victim's injuries were a direct result of the owner or keeper's lack of proper care. Under this dog bite cause of action, it is not necessary to show that the dog had vicious tendencies. The important factor is the owner or keeper's ineffective control of the animal.
Even dogs that are usually gentle can be dangerous under certain circumstances. For example, if an owner is not keeping a tight leash on his or her dog in a public place and the dog jumps and injures someone, the dog owner would be negligent.
Negligence Per Se in Dog Bite Attack Cases.
Another negligence theory is called "negligence per se." This means that an owner or keeper is automatically presumed to be responsible for a victim's dog bite injuries if a local law, such as a leash law or other animal control law, is violated and the violation is the cause of the dog bite victim's injuries. If the dog owner or keeper has no justification for the violation, then culpability is fixed and there is no need to prove that the owner or keeper failed to exercise due care in their control of the dog.
Right to Compensation in Dog Bite Cases
A competent attorney will diligently pursue all types of compensation available to the dog bite victim. The types of compensation a dog bite lawyer can seek on behalf of the victim include:
Medical bills (both past and future)
Pain and suffering
Loss of wages
Reduced earning capacity
Punitive damages
Medical monitoring
Lifestyle changes
Lifetime care and medical costs (for severe cases such as brain injuries)
An experienced dog bite attorney will also be able to help identify damages from future complications of the injuries sustained in a dog attack. Many breeds of dogs can exert enormous amounts of pressure with their jaws. Even where it does not appear initially that the victim sustained serious injuries, a dog bite victim can sustain significant nerve damage without having the skin broken. This type of injury has the potential to develop into a serious injury and could require prolonged medical treatment. Retaining a lawyer experienced in dog bite attacks is an essential step in assuring that any possible future damages will be asserted in behalf of the victim.
Minor's Settlements in Dog Bite Attack Cases
Minors' settlements must be approved by the court or jurisdiction in the case, under Maryland law. If the dog bite victim is a child, the financial recovery in the case is often placed in a protective account until the child has reached the age of 18. The account must be federally-insured and interest-bearing. A diligent dog bite attorney will ensure that compensation is properly structured to provide periodic payments to the minor after reaching eighteen years in a way that benefits the child over a long period of time.
Choosing the Right Dog Bite Attorney
A dog bite attack can be a terrifying experience and may result in not only serious physical injuries, but traumatic and emotional wounds as well, especially in children. Handling a dog bite case can be a complex process and it is essential to seek representation from a skilled and experienced dog bite lawyer without delay. Because time is of the essence in dog bite attack cases, the following should be done without delay:
Secure evidence
Track down witnesses
Establish the dog's ownership
Identify other responsible parties
Report the incident to animal control authorities
Obtain a dog bite incident report
Obtain relevant medical records
Contact insurance companies and establish a claim
Dog Keeper or Caretaker as Potential Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. Maryland laws make the "owner of any dog" liable, but what happens when the dog is under the control of someone else at the time of the dog bite attack? In this situation the keeper or caretaker of the dog can also be liable, but not under strict liability. In contrast to an owner, a keeper must have prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities before the keeper can be held liable. If the keeper knows that the dog has previously been involved in a dog bite attack this would qualify as "prior knowledge." Having that knowledge makes him liable.
Liability in the above dog bite situation is based on a "common law" theory (discussed below), similar to the "one-free bite" rule. A keeper might also be liable in a dog bite attack if the keeper was negligent in handling or controlling the dog.
Landlords As Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. Landlords can be held liable for a victim's injuries in a dog bite attack in some circumstances. Although sometimes it can be difficult to prove, a landlord must 1) have knowledge of the dangerous propensities of a tenant's dog, and 2) have the right to remove the dog from the premises.
Residential Property Owners as Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. If the property in question is residential, the landlord does not have a duty to inspect for the existence of a dangerous dog. The landlord must have actual knowledge of the presence of a vicious dog. If a dangerous dog escapes from the landlord's property due to defects (such as a hole in a fence), then the landlord could also be liable for off-site injuries caused in a dog bite attack.
Commercial Property Owners as Liable Parties in Dog Bite Attacks. In the case of commercial properties, the landlord has a stringent duty to inspect the premises in order to discover any dangerous conditions, including a vicious dog. For example, if a commercial tenant is running a business on the property and the tenant's dog bites a customer, the landlord may be liable. The landlord cannot avoid liability by claiming that he or she had no knowledge of the dog, because the landlord has a duty to inspect his commercial properties.
Depending upon the particular facts of the case, there may be other potential defendants in a dog bite attack case, such as day care centers and home owner associations. Identifying all responsible parties in a dog bite attack case is critical to a successful lawsuit, especially if the dog owner is unable to fully compensate the victim. A competent dog bite attorney will be able to investigate the facts surrounding the dog attack and determine the appropriate parties who may be responsible for the victim's dog bite injuries. The diligence of the dog bite lawyer will help increase the chances that the injured victim will be compensated from all available sources.
A person is legally on private property if their presence is allowed by law, such as a mail carrier or emergency service personnel, or if there was an invitation from the property owner. Normally a social guest is legally on someone's property while the guest is trying to find out if the owner is at home (for example, while ringing the door bell or walking up a driveway to see if the owner's car is in the garage).
A guest however cannot ignore the customary formalities. Entering through a gate or door without permission becomes a trespass. For example, in one case a child was properly on the dog owner's property but was told to stay out of the backyard. The child opened a gate and was bitten by a dog after entering the backyard. Despite her age, the court held the child was a trespasser and the property owner was not liable.
Where the Injury Is Not a Dog Bite. Under the Maryland law, a dog owner is liable for a dog attack only when the injury is the result of an actual bite. Although the injury must be caused by the action of a dog bite, the skin does not have to broken. For example, if the dog attack victim is bruised or suffered nerve damage without the presence of actual puncture wounds, the dog owner would still be liable. There are cases where non-bite injuries have occurred after a dog jumped on or knocked over a victim. In such cases the dog owner is not responsible under Maryland's strict liability law, but may be liable under other theories of recovery, such as negligence (discussed below).
Assumption Of The Risk As a Defense in Dog Bite Attacks. The actions of the dog bite victim prior to the dog attack are also important in determining whether a dog owner will be held liable. Even if the victim is lawfully on private property, the dog owner is not liable if the dog bite victim kicked, teased, or otherwise provoked the dog. In such instances a dog owner may raise the defense that the victim invited the injury by her conduct and therefore assumed the risk of the dog attack. The key factors are the dog bite victim's knowledge and appreciation of the danger and a voluntary acceptance of the risk of being bitten.
The defense of assumption of the risk in dog bite also applies when someone assumes control or possession of the dog. For example, veterinarians and their assistants have assumed the risk of being bitten while treating a dog in their possession and control, as do others such as dog trainers, groomers, house sitters, kennel staff, and handlers.
Children Below the Age of Five. There are special rules for some children in dog bite and other personal injury cases. As a matter of law, children under the age of five are considered incapable of negligent acts, such as provoking a dog. The courts reason that children of that age are not legally capable of acting with reasonable care towards an animal.
Other Theories of Dog Bite Liability
As discussed above, there are various situations in which the victim of a dog bite attack may not be able to recover under Maryland's dog bite law. In such cases there are other legal theories that a competent lawyer might use to hold a dog owner liable for a victim's dog bite injuries. The aid of an experienced dog bite lawyer is essential in presenting the proper legal claims because they are based on the unique facts of each individual dog bite attack. Several of those theories are briefly discussed below:
Common Law in Dog Bite Attack Liability. Common law liability is based on the dog owner's knowledge of his or her dog's dangerousness. This is essentially the same as the one free-bite rule. To establish this type of liability it must be shown that the dog had vicious tendencies, such as a prior bite or other vicious behavior, and that the dog owner knew it. Maryland's law has essentially replaced this common law action as applied to dog owners. However, common law is very useful in establishing liability against a keeper who is in control of the dog at the time of the attack, and had knowledge of the dog's viciousness.
Negligence In Dog Bite Attacks. A dog owner or keeper can also be held liable by a victim's dog bite injuries if the owner or keeper is negligent in the handling of the dog at the time of the dog attack. All that the dog bite victim needs to show is that the dog owner or handler was not reasonably careful in handling or controlling the dog, and that the victim's injuries were a direct result of the owner or keeper's lack of proper care. Under this dog bite cause of action, it is not necessary to show that the dog had vicious tendencies. The important factor is the owner or keeper's ineffective control of the animal.
Even dogs that are usually gentle can be dangerous under certain circumstances. For example, if an owner is not keeping a tight leash on his or her dog in a public place and the dog jumps and injures someone, the dog owner would be negligent.
Negligence Per Se in Dog Bite Attack Cases.
Another negligence theory is called "negligence per se." This means that an owner or keeper is automatically presumed to be responsible for a victim's dog bite injuries if a local law, such as a leash law or other animal control law, is violated and the violation is the cause of the dog bite victim's injuries. If the dog owner or keeper has no justification for the violation, then culpability is fixed and there is no need to prove that the owner or keeper failed to exercise due care in their control of the dog.
Right to Compensation in Dog Bite Cases
A competent attorney will diligently pursue all types of compensation available to the dog bite victim. The types of compensation a dog bite lawyer can seek on behalf of the victim include:
Medical bills (both past and future)
Pain and suffering
Loss of wages
Reduced earning capacity
Punitive damages
Medical monitoring
Lifestyle changes
Lifetime care and medical costs (for severe cases such as brain injuries)
An experienced dog bite attorney will also be able to help identify damages from future complications of the injuries sustained in a dog attack. Many breeds of dogs can exert enormous amounts of pressure with their jaws. Even where it does not appear initially that the victim sustained serious injuries, a dog bite victim can sustain significant nerve damage without having the skin broken. This type of injury has the potential to develop into a serious injury and could require prolonged medical treatment. Retaining a lawyer experienced in dog bite attacks is an essential step in assuring that any possible future damages will be asserted in behalf of the victim.
Minor's Settlements in Dog Bite Attack Cases
Minors' settlements must be approved by the court or jurisdiction in the case, under Maryland law. If the dog bite victim is a child, the financial recovery in the case is often placed in a protective account until the child has reached the age of 18. The account must be federally-insured and interest-bearing. A diligent dog bite attorney will ensure that compensation is properly structured to provide periodic payments to the minor after reaching eighteen years in a way that benefits the child over a long period of time.
Choosing the Right Dog Bite Attorney
A dog bite attack can be a terrifying experience and may result in not only serious physical injuries, but traumatic and emotional wounds as well, especially in children. Handling a dog bite case can be a complex process and it is essential to seek representation from a skilled and experienced dog bite lawyer without delay. Because time is of the essence in dog bite attack cases, the following should be done without delay:
Secure evidence
Track down witnesses
Establish the dog's ownership
Identify other responsible parties
Report the incident to animal control authorities
Obtain a dog bite incident report
Obtain relevant medical records
Contact insurance companies and establish a claim
I. The Dog Bite Problem
While animal damage issues apply to all categories of animals, it is the dog that dominates the reported and unreported cases. Dogs cause significant injury to humans, sadly on a regular basis. While it is estimated that the number of cats in the United States slightly outnumbers the number of dogs, the ever popular dogs number approximately 55 million in the U.S. In 1996, the Insurance Information Institute estimates that 3.5 million dog bites were reported to local authorities and that insurance companies paid $1 billion in dog bite claims.[i] A survey of injuries in the 1980's showed an average of two million bites per year, with half the victims left scarred and about a third losing time from work or school. During the 1980's dog bites accounted for approximately $30 million in health care expenses annually.[ii] Also a sad fact of the dog bite story is the number of small children who are harmed by dogs in a wide variety of fact patterns. In 1997 the Personal Injury Verdict Reviews reported a number of dog bit cases in which settlement amounts vary: $1,500 for dog bite with puncture wounds to the upper thigh, $30,000 for dog bit causing laceration of the lip causing scaring, and $100,000 for an attack by two pit bulls who bit a 10 year-old male causing facial scarring. One study suggest that over two-thirds of the incidents involved single bites with the next largest set being multiple bits, and the final category of injuries caused by being knocked down or thrown.[iii]
Jury verdicts may be unpredictable. In one New Hampshire case, a woman received 27 dog bites form two pit bulls while in a friend’s apartment. She was in the hospital for two weeks and had $40,000 in medical bills, but was unemployed. On the basis of common law duty to keep rented premises free from dangerous conditions, she sued the landlord of the building, but not the owners of the dogs, as the owner was her friend. A jury returned a verdict of $2.14 million. The attorneys settled the case for $1.1 million while the judge was considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.[iv] One analysis of animal injury cases found that on average the jury verdict was 24% higher than settlements for the same kind of injury.[v]
If the animal owner has insurance (and this is strongly urged upon all owners), then the risk of financial devastation is significantly reduced. If the owners of an animal have no assets, then they are effectively “judgment proof” and the likelihood of a case being filed against them is low. If the owner of an animal has some assets, but no insurance then significant risk exist. For example, in the case of DeRobertis v. Randazzo, 462 A2d 1260 (NJ 1983), the plaintiff infant was bitten on the head by the chained-up dog of the defendant. The child had nightmares for a year but a scar on the scalp was hidden by hair. The jury awarded the plaintiff $40,000. When this award was upheld by the Appellate Division, the plaintiff sought and obtained an order directing the sale of defendant Randazzo's home to satisfy the judgment. On filing his petition for certification to the state supreme court, Randazzo had to pledge his house as security for the judgment. (The case was remanded for new trial.) Thus, ownership of even one animal can represents significant financial risk.
The law has the difficult problem of deciding when to hold the owners of dogs liable for what is usually totally unintended by the owner but is nevertheless an expensive and painful injury to an individual who has done nothing wrong. The law keeps vacillating from demanding a showing of fault by the owner of the dog, to holding the owner liable for all foreseeable injuries regardless of the degree of the dog owner’s fault (strict liability).
II. Introduction to Tort Law
Historically within the United States, recovery for injury to the person or property was based upon one of the legal concepts found within the family of common law torts. These concepts include trespass, negligence, and strict liability. (See figure 11-1 for a more comprehensive list.) Each concept has its own elements that must be shown by the injured party before the law will allow monetary recovery for the damages inflicted by an animal.
The legal wrong of trespass arises when one party goes upon the land of another without permission. An animal is considered an extension of the owner /possessor of the animal. If a car was improperly parked and rolled onto the land of another, causing damage, then the owner /possessor of the car would be liable for the damages caused. Likewise, it is appropriate to consider an animal to be a legal extension of the owner /possessor of the animal. However, it should be noted that animals represent a complex set of issues and as a result the owner may or may not be liable for an animals trespass.
Negligence allows recovery for the action or lack of action by an animal owner /keeper. Recovery at law under this concept requires a showing by the injured party that there was a legal duty owed to the injured party by the animal owner /keeper, and that the injury arose because of a breech of that duty. Not all harms are recoverable because not all duties of a moral or social nature rise to the level of a legal duty.[vi]
Strict liability arises in the animal context when the animal at issue is either a wild animal or a domestic animal with a known vicious propensity. In more recent times, state legislatures have added statutory material which is either in addition to the common law tort actions or in replacement of the tort actions, and usually impose more liability on the owner or possessor of an animal. The following states impose strict liability to dog owners, regardless of their knowledge of their dogs’ vicious propensity: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. [To view this list in a table that describes the provisions, click here].
III. Examples of Common Law Torts Involving Dogs
Assume that there is a Mr. Jones and that he is the owner of a three year old German Shepard. He and the dog live in typical suburban neighborhood containing usual mix of people of all different ages. The dog has the run of the back yard which is surrounded by an appropriate fence to confine the dog to the back yard. Mr. Jones has had the dog since it was a puppy.
Example #1 – Mr. Jones does not like neighbor East and one day takes his dog and lets it loose in the back yard of Mr. East hoping it would dig up their garden and frighten the East’s cat. In fact, the dog ran through wet cement chasing the cat and then killing the cat. When the East’s daughter came to see what was happening, the dog bit her on the leg. Mr. Jones has engaged in an intentional act and all of what the dog did was foreseeable by any reasonable person even if the specific acts are not what Mr. Jones intended. Mr. Jones would be civilly liable for all the damage caused by the dog as it was an intentional trespass. (Criminal liability would most likely arise from these facts, see footnote #1 infra.)
Example #2 – One morning Mr. Jones lets the dog out for a morning run and the dog decides to go onto the neighbors land and causes the harm and injures described above. The dog going onto the land of another could constitute a common law trespass. However the rules as to trespass are complex and are set out later in this Chapter.
Example #3 – Mr. Jones likes his neighbor East. One day with the dog in the backyard and Mr. Jones is at work, the neighbor East’s little girl goes into Mr. Jones backyard, by opening a simple latch and takes the dog it to her backyard. The dog then causes the same harm: runs through the cement, kills the cat and bites the little girl. Assuming that this is the first time that anyone had tried to remove the dog from the backyard and that the dog had not previous appeared to be dangerous, (show a vicious propensity) then in this example Mr. Jones would not be liable. He has done no intentional act which causes the harm. Likewise he has not forgotten to do something (been negligent) which might have prevented the harm. At common law even though his property caused the harm and injury, he would not be liable because he had no fault.
Example #4 – same facts as #3 plus the state where the events occurred had adopted a strict liability statute. In this case, the lack of fault by Mr. Jones is not a defense. For financial liability to arise all that need be shown is that Mr. Jones owns the dog and that the dog caused the damages in question. However, most strict liability statutes have some defenses or limitation of applications built into them. (See discussion in D, 1. Strict Liability Based on Vicious Propensity, infra.)
Example #5 – same facts as #3 plus the additional information that Mr. Jones knows that the dog is likely to bit small children and also knows that the East’s child likes to come over and talk to the dog . Now the common law tort analysis has different roads to travel. If there is information the owner knows or should be aware of about the propensity of his dog to bit humans, that is, that it represents more that the normal risk to others, then Mr. Jones will be liable for the injuries if he does not take the necessary precautions. As he was negligent in securing the dog in the back yard he will be liable for the injured caused. He may also be liable under the concept of strict liability, see § infra.
IV. Theory of Tort Liability in Animal Cases
One point to ponder is why are there so many rules that relate animals? What is the policy that supports all these different rules? Common law torts is a legal structure that seek to allocate risk among the members of society. The more valuable a particular activity to society, the more willing is the society, through its legal rules, to shift risk of the activity to others. For example, historically the raising of cattle has been important to society as an economic activity and as a food source; therefore society has been protective of this activity.
Tort law has traditionally sought to balance the “usefulness” of an animal with the risk it represents to the public. Low risk animals such as sheep and cats impose no special duty of care on owners or possessors unless the owners have specific knowledge that their specific animal possesses unusual risk to others. It is presumed that an individual coming face to face with these animals will not face risk of harm beyond the general knowledge and capabilities of the public. Additionally, the types of harm threatened by cats and cows are not normally life threatening. Some animals such as lions are presumed by the law to represent high risk to others and, therefore, mere possession of one of these species will give rise to the highest duty of care for the owner/possessor. Some animals, particularly those of economic value, such as bulls, stallions and rams are not viewed by the law “as being as being abnormally dangerous animals, but rather as animals routinely kept for stud purposes, so that the particular danger involved in their dangerous tendencies has become a normal incident of civilized life.”[vii] Obviously not every person in today’s society would have equal personal knowledge of the dangers represented by these animals, but the owners of the animal receive the legal benefit of having their animals not being presumed dangerous, like the law does for the owner of a lion.
V. Dangerous or Vicious Propensities
The early common law distinguished between wild and domesticated animals for purposes of imposing liability on their owners. Owners of fierce or wild animals were absolutely liable for harm caused to others. However, owners of domesticated animals, such as dogs, were liable only if they had scienter; that is, the owners were liable only if they knew of the animal's dangerous or mischievous propensities. Emmons v. Stevane, 77 N.J.L. 570, 572 (E. & A.1909) (reversal of directed verdict for owner of dog who knew his dog was vicious).[viii]
Under several of the different tort theories and state statutes discussed in this chapter the liability of an animal’s owner will rise or fall upon a showing of the “dangerous or vicious propensity” of an animal. Some wild animals such as lions will be presumed to have this propensity and tort law will impose strict liability on the owners without showing that a specific animal has a dangerous or vicious propensity. For other animals it is a more complex process of analysis. The classic tort concept is easy to state. “The rule is that one who keeps a vicious dog, with knowledge of its savage and vicious nature, is presumed to be negligent if he does not keep the animal secure from injuring others.”[ix]
Although almost all cases use the term “vicious” is used to state the rule of tort liability this word is really misleading. The term “vicious” suggest that the actor has a particular mind set, one which disregards the safety of others, or an action driven from an emotion such as hate or even an action which is not proportional to the circumstances. Assuming that nonhuman animals have the mental capacity for viciousness, and some dogs and horses seem to exhibit such behavior, tort liability has in mind something actually broader in concept, something more objective than the mind set of the animal. It is not the animal's spirit or motivation which is focused upon, rather, it is an animal's risky propensities, (i.e., the likelihood that it will cause harm or injury). A Great Dane or St. Bernard may be of a playful or friendly disposition, but if it has a known propensity to jump on people then the owner may be strictly liable for injury caused by such activity.[x] What the law is actually concerned about is dangerousness, unacceptably risky actions by animals. Therefore the phrase “dangerous animal” is much more accurate in describing the threshold of legal liability than the phrase “vicious propensity.”
The analysis for deciding whether legal liability will attach to a particular action by an animal will have three steps:
Was the action of the animal with the category of “dangerous” activities from which the law seeks to protect the general public?
Had the animal in question shown a previous propensity to engage in this conduct?
Did the defendant have actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s propensity?
Did the animal’s dangerous conduct cause.
As to the first point, some actions are clearly within
this dangerous category, such as dog bites and bull goring. Other actions are clearly not, such as cats rubbing your leg, or dogs barking. In one case a women claimed that the defendant’s barking dogs frightened her into the street where she was hit by a car. The court found no liability for the dog owner.[xi] If a person trips over a sleeping dog, and seriously injuries him or herself, there can be no recovery against the dog’s owner as a dog sleeping is not the sort of high risk activity the law is seeking to protect against. On the contrary, one kind of injury, falling off a horse, possesses a particular analytical challenge:
Because each individual injury resulting from an animal's behavior, as well as each individual animal, is different, this analysis is necessarily fact sensitive. Thus, although we recognize that the possibility of being thrown from a horse increases with the inexperience of the rider or with the degree of training and disposition of the horse, or both, we are not prepared, in this instance, to conclude that the gray mare posed an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff. Not every risk of injury posed by an animal is an unreasonable risk. In general, horseback riding entails the risk of being thrown whether one is an experienced equestrian or a beginning rider. Indeed, in this instance, the evidence tends to establish, and the trial court found, that the horse was of a gentle nature and the movement it made which caused the plaintiff to fall off or be "thrown" was not aggressive behavior or even unusual. In other words, it was horse-like behavior. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was simply caught off-guard by the sudden movement of the animal.[xii]
(For a discussion on Equine Activity Liability Statutes, which seek to ameliorate liability for horse facility operators, click here.) If a horse rises high in air on its back feet every time that a car or dog comes within 50 yards of it, then that is a dangerous propensity that a rider should be protected against or warned about. In most cases, as with those dealing with dog bites, there is no real question that the conduct of the animal is a dangerous one that falls within the protection of the law. The analysis then moves to the issue of the propensity of the animal.
The necessity of showing a prior propensity exist because the law makers (judges or legislature) believe that in fairness the owner of an animal should not have legal liability for the actions of its animals unless there is notice of the likelihood of the dangerous activity. This gives the owner the opportunity to do something about controlling the risk the animal represents.[xiii] The clearest case is where the animal has previously injured another person in an identical way – a dog bite, horse kick, or cat scratch.[xiv] This does not mean that each dog is entitled to one bite.[xv] Dogs and horses may well evidence signs of a dangerous propensity before they cause any actual harm.
What the defendant /owner knew is often the point of contention in the lawsuit. This is not necessarily an easy point for the injured party to show a court. Consider if on one Sunday afternoon Fido bites Small Sam who was walking down the street past Fido’s front yard. Fido has been owned by Big Boy for three years. For Small Sam to recover for the injury, he will have to show Fido has previously shown this propensity and that Big Boy knew about it. How does Small Sam have any idea what Big Boy knows about Fido’s activities? If Fido has not been reported to government officials or has not done anything in view of the neighbors, then Small Sam will be hard pressed to present any evidence of the nature of Fido. One attorney sought to get around this dilemma by asking a court to take judicial notice of the fact that all German Shepards are vicious dogs, but the court refused to do so.[xvi] If an owner has knowledge that her cat has bitten children before and that it was suffering from a disease that makes the cat extra sensitive, then a prima facie case has been made that the cat was dangerous, posing more than the normal risk of harm from cats.[xvii]
How much notice is required to trigger the legal liability? One court noted that there should be an incident or incidents which would put a prudent man or woman on notice to anticipate the event which occurred. A single incident may not adequately place a person on notice. The test should be whether the one incident was of such nature as to cause a reasonably prudent person to believe that the animal was sufficiently dangerous as to be likely to cause an injury at a later time.[xviii] Knowledge or notice that dog has behaved ferociously toward other animals, or has engaged in dog fights is not necessarily notice that it will attack human beings.[xix] Evidence of dogs fighting dogs has been rejected in several more recent cases.[xx] For the most part, prior incidents between the animal and people are the best source of evidence concerning an animal's propensity.[xxi] But, keep in mind that knowledge that a horse has thrown rider does not show propensity to kick.[xxii]
This is where an animal behaviorist expert may become involved. A key issue in many cases concerns the expected behavior of an animal in a given fact pattern. Is a particular reaction or injury within the normal pattern of behavior, and therefore an acceptable risk or does it constitute an unusual, unpredictable behavior that is not within the normal risk of daily life that the law imposes upon everyone?
VI. Juries & Going for the Deep Pocket
There is a special dynamic when injury cases, particularly dog bite cases go to the jury. It often seems like the jury (and sometimes, judges) believe that someone should pay for the injury, for the human pain and suffering. If the owner does not have money than they will reach out and touch someone else, usually a landowner or landlord who would be expected to have insurance to cover the losses. In one case, two men got into a physical fight in the home of the defendant and the defendant’s dog bit the plaintiff. The jury returned a judgment for $100,000 but the judge set it aside saying that there was no evidence of negligence. This was upheld on appeal but the dissent believed that the dog’s barking during the verbal dispute, prior to the physical events, was sufficient notice that the dog might bite and would have found a duty and violation.[xxiii] Dogs bark all the time for many reasons to convey many different messages, but the jury believed that someone should pay for the injury and used the barking of the dog as a slender reed upon which to support legal and financial liability.
In another case a landlord of a trailer park was found liable for a $50,000 judgment by a jury for a dog injury and the judge reversed the judgment.[xxiv] In this case, the appeals court reversed the judge, holding that the jury could have found the landlord had sufficient notice to support liability.[xxv] The better reasoned position was by the dissent noted: “Why was there a $ 50,000 verdict against A & V for supposedly having knowledge of Brown's (dog’s owner) dangerous dogs with their vicious propensities, and then, Brown absolved by the jury of any finding of liability? Mongeon (plaintiff) failed to even appeal the verdict in favor of Brown. The proof against Brown was much more substantial than that against A & V. Talk about irreconcilable verdicts! This one is appalling, confusing and indicative of sympathy of the jury in favor of Mongeon as well as the jury going after the deep pockets of the business of the owner instead of the owner of the dogs. Also, less we forget, Brown was proceeding pro se.” (To read more about landlord tenant liability, see the Topic Area.)
Another aspect of the deep pocket is that sometimes conflicts arise about which deep pocket might be liable. This is a particular problem when the dog bite occurred around an auto or truck and then there is both auto insurance and home owners insurance that may be liable. In one case a plaintiff was bitten by a dog when walking around the back of pickup. $55,000 in damages were awarded. The issue on appeal concerned the issue of which insurance policy, auto or homeowners, should cover this type of incident. The court adopted the nexus test; the auto insurance is liable if the injury arises out of the operation of a vehicle. The Court held : “We are satisfied that automobile liability insurance should cover this injury caused by a dog bite to the face occurring while the dog was in the open rear deck of a pickup truck because it arose out of the use of the vehicle to transport the dog. Moreover, the bite incident was facilitated by the height and open design of the deck. In our view the act was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the use of the vehicle, and there was a substantial nexus between the dog bite and the use of the vehicle at the time the dog bit the plaintiff.”[xxvi] This opinion contains an excellent summary of the auto/dog bite /insurance cases.
VII. Liabilities of an Owner/Keeper
1. Strict Liability Based on Vicious Propensity
At common law, a lawsuit could be based upon strict liability if the injured party could prove that the dog was vicious and that the owner knew it (this might also be considered as a presumption of negligence).[xxvii] This is important option for the injured party as it is often easier to prove the prior knowledge of the character of the animal than that the owner was negligent in the particular facts which resulted in the injury in question. What constitutes vicious propensity was discussed infra. The other key element is that the owner must have knowledge of the dog’s characteristics in question. Additionally, it must be shown that this characteristic is what caused the harm. Thus, if an owner knows that a dog is liable to jump up on people, but the injury in question was caused by a human tripping over the dog while it was sleeping, then the owner is not liable under this concept. Even thought the owner had prior knowledge of a characteristic that may cause human injury, that characteristic did not cause this injury.[xxviii] Where a cat had on two prior occasions bitten children, even though the owner said the children provoked the cat, the question of the owner’s knowledge of vicious propensity and hence legal liability should go to the jury.[xxix]
The usual defense of the owner of the animal is that they did not know of the animal’s vicious propensity. As it is impossible for the court or a jury to know with certainty what was or was not within one person’s mind, the legal standard is not subjective but objective. Thus, the legal test is what the owner knew or should have known or understood from prior events.
When a reasonable owner would know of the likelihood of a dog's tendency to harm, whether by biting, scratching, or jumping, the plaintiff should not be obliged to prove actual knowledge. If an owner has been warned of the threat posed by his dog, it should not be necessary to prove that the owner had actual knowledge that the dog had, in fact, harmed another. A dog is not necessarily entitled to its first bite.[xxx]
The knowledge in question normally has to be from observation of the specific animal in question. When a German Shepard was the dog in question, the Court refused the plaintiff’s request “to take judicial notice of the supposed fact that German shepherd dogs are, as a breed, vicious.”[xxxi] Another court refused to find knowledge from the name of the dog - Thunder.[xxxii] It is the additional element of forseeability of the injury given the knowledge of the nature of the animal that is necessary to win a lawsuit.
Strict liability will apply not withstanding the negligence of third parties or Acts of God. If a possessor knows an animal is dangerous, and has it tied up and a child lets it loose for play and the dog attacks another child, the possessor is liable. The same is true if an act of nature releases the animal from confinement.[xxxiii] The one exception to strict liability is when the injured party is an intentional or negligent trespasser.
Some states have transformed the common law rules into statutory rules. For example the Georgia Code states:
§ 51-2-7. Liability of owner or keeper of vicious or dangerous animal for injuries caused by animal. A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured.
The cases decided under this code section have the familiar ring of the common law analysis.[xxxiv] (Click here for a summary of states that have strict liability statutes.)
2. Negligence (other than Vicious Propensity)
When there is no wrongful trespass and no proof of vicious propensity, the owner may nevertheless be liable if it can be shown that he or she had intentionally caused the animal to do harm,[xxxv] or if he or she negligently failed to prevent the harm.[xxxvi] Negligence arising out of responsibility for an animal is merely an example of the classic garden-variety tort where the plaintiff must prove:
that the defendant owed the injured party a duty;
that the duty was negligently breached; and
that the party suffered damages proximately caused by the defendant's breach of duty.[xxxvii]
Since several other books exist which explain in great detail all the intricacies of general tort law,[xxxviii] this and subsequent sections will only outline the concepts within the context of recently decided animal cases. Some of the possible claims of negligence include a failure to adequately confine, a failure to control, and a failure to warn. This type of claim arises most often when there is no evidence of vicious propensity and the injured party is seeking another basis for legal relief. These claims all relate back to the owner’s knowledge of the animal at question. That is, there is an extra duty toward others if the owner has specific knowledge of an unusual risk. A 1994 California case sought damages for lyme disease which the plaintiff claimed was a result of ticks which came off the defendant’s dog. The court held that the defendant did not have a duty to protect others against liable for general risk of insect bites even if a dog was the vector.[xxxix] Another case found no duty and therefore no negligence where a two dogs knocked someone over while engaging in normal play.[xl]
An interesting and detailed discussion of the general concepts of negligence deals with the duty a landowner landlord created when he took upon himself to control a dangerous dog found on his property. The Court found that because the landlord decided to act, he created a duty that otherwise would not have been present and then held that he was negligent in carrying out the duty. This was a close case and there is a strong dissent.[xli]
Negligent failure to secure an animal.
One difficult issue is whether the owner or keeper of an animal should restrain the animal. With dogs it is generally presumed that restraint is not required (unlike tigers for example). However in some circumstances a duty to restrain may arise.
[A] negligence cause of action arises when there is ineffective control of an animal in a situation where it would reasonably be expected that injury could occur, and injury does proximately result from the negligence. The amount of control required is that which would be exercised by a reasonable person based upon the total situation at the time, including the past behavior of the animal and the injuries that could have been reasonably foreseen.[xlii]
In Newport v. Moran,[xliii] defendant’s dog was roaming the neighborhood and knocked over plaintiff. There was no suggestion that this was a dangerous dog. Therefore the plaintiff had to assert another form of negligence. In a common law negligence action, the plaintiff must show that there was a duty to restrain based upon some prior knowledge the dog in question posed a risk of this type of injury. In this case, the plaintiff had no evidence to suggest the owner had any prior knowledge of the dog knocking over people, that a dog is playful and friendly alone is not notice for a dangerous trait. “Without some reason to foresee that he was likely to run into people, there was no common law duty to confine the dog, and the issue should not have been presented to the jury.”
Another case came to an opposite conclusion. The facts as set out by court are:
Defendants owned a two-year-old dog, a mixed golden retriever and springer spaniel, gold in color and weighing between 80 and 90 pounds. Prior to the accident they had knowledge that the dog could and would escape from the back yard of their house by jumping over the gate and had observed their dog chasing cars on several occasions. There was no evidence that the dog had been observed chasing motorcycles or bicycles. After defendants were advised by a city dog catcher that they should keep their dog tied up, they developed the habit of tying the animal up in the back yard.[xliv]
The owners knew that their dog had a history of escaping and chasing cars. This gave rise to a duty to control. When on one day they did not restrain the dog, it escaped and chased a motorcycle, getting in front of the cycle and causing it to tip over. The dog’s owners suggested that it was not foreseeable, that is that since the dog had not previously chases motorcycles, they had no duty toward them. Quoting from another case the Court noted that:
It is generally held, regardless of whether the question of "foreseeability" is treated as a problem of "duty," "negligence," or "proximate cause," that it is not necessary that the defendant might or should have foreseen the likelihood of the particular injury or harm, the extent of the harm, or the manner in which it occurred, but that it is only necessary that he should have anticipated that some injury or harm might result from his conduct.
Thus, risk to a motorcyclist was foreseeable and in turn, there was a duty toward the plaintiff to restrain the dog. If the owner failed in his or her duty, legal liability will arise. In another case the dog ran out of the front yard and into a motorcycle causing injury. But, in this case, there was no prior knowledge of this tendency and therefore the owner was not considered negligent. The court refused to adopt a strict liability rule about dogs chasing cars.[xlv]
It is generally recognized that many animals, including dogs, display a particular defensiveness when eating. It was therefore a jury question whether a defendant had negligently failed to properly confine a large dog or otherwise prevent it from attacking a strange minor who was in the area while the dog was eating.[xlvi]
Negligent Entrustment of an animal.
In one case, the owners of a dog left their 12 year-old child in charge of the dog. The child let the dog off the restraining chain to untangle the chain, and, while off the chain, the dog bit a person standing near by. The court held that the claim of negligent entrustment could stand separate from any knowledge of vicious propensity (of which there was none). “To prove a claim of negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must prove: (1) an entrustment; (2) to an incapacitated person or one who is incapable of using due care; (3) with actual and specific knowledge that the person is incapacitated or incapable of using due care at the time of the entrustment; (4) proximate cause; and, (5) damages.” The Court upheld a jury verdict for the injured plaintiff in the amount of $28,842.[xlvii]
Negligent care, violation of a local ordinance.
Nearly every state empowers local municipalities with some specified power to create ordinances regulating dogs and other animals. In those states that do not grant this specific power or do not otherwise recognize the power of local units to regulate dogs, courts usually defer to municipalities’ inherent police power as a way to regulate dogs. (See, Web Center Discussion on Local Regulation of Dogs.) The issue then arises as to when such an ordinance can provide the legal basis for a cause of action. The basics of this cause of action were set out in Rickrode v. Wistinghausen:
To make a prima facie case of ordinary negligence, plaintiff need only show that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances to control or restrain. 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 518, comment f, p 31. Although cats are generally permitted to run at large, there are circumstances under which it would be negligent to allow a cat to do so. 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 518, comments j and k, p 32. In this case, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated a city ordinance requiring cats to be kept confined or leashed. Such a violation, if proved, is evidence of negligence. 340 NW2d 83 (MI 1983).
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
In a Connecticut case the parents of a child witnessed a dog attack and injure their child. Besides the claim for the injury to the child, the trial court also allowed a cause of action on behalf of the parents who witnessed the attack. The court adopted the ruling of a California case as to the elements for recovery in an action based upon bystander emotional distress: "damages for emotional distress should be recoverable only if the plaintiff: (1) is closely related to the injury victim; (2) is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is aware that it is causing injury to the victim and, (3) as a result suffers emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness."[xlviii] Thus, the court allowed a cause of action based upon negligent infliction of emotional distress.[xlix] This cause of action is not available in all states and therefore state law should be consulted. (For a discussion on emotional damages for injury to a pet, click here.)
Negligent failure to warn.
A duty to warn will not exist unless the owner of the animal has knowledge of a risk posed by other than the ordinary. Without the knowledge there can be no duty, without a duty there is no negligence.
Sometimes the plaintiff seeks to characterize a set of facts a justifying a presumption of negligence. But this is difficult. The fact may simply involve an unforeseeable accident for which no one was liable.
VIII. Statutory liability - State Law
The legislatures of many states have changed the common law balance of risk when it comes to the specific topic of dog bites and dog caused injuries. There are three basis varieties of legislative strict liability laws. One focuses specifically on injuries caused by dog bites while another on other injuries in general caused by dogs. A third category is normally referred to as a “Dangerous Dog” law and relate primarily to the power of the state to confiscate and destroy dogs that have engaged in inappropriate conduct and hold owners criminally liable for violations. Sometimes such statutes also allow for relief for individuals harmed by dogs so identified by the state. For example in Maine, “if a dog, whose owner or keeper refuses or neglects to comply with the order [to confine a dangerous dog], wounds any person by a sudden assault or wounds or kills any domestic animal, the owner or keeper shall pay the person injured treble damages and costs to be recovered by a civil action.[l]
One state is of a split mind, or believes the balance of interest depend upon where the dog is located. In Oklahoma, the strict liability rule applies in cities and towns, but not in the countryside. It is not clear whether this difference is a result of the dogs being different, the human’s awareness of dogs being different or the value of the dogs to the humans being different in the urban verse rural location.[li]
New Jersey adopted a narrower strict liability dog bite statute:
The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner when he is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof.[lii] (Emphasis added.)
This New Jersey statute is discussed in the case of DeRobertis v. Randazzo, infra.[liii]
Note the following elements within the statute:
The statute applies only to dog bites. No other animals and no other types of dog injury such as tripping, jumping, or being mauled, trigger the liability.
The owner is liable. This is apparently the case even if the owner was not the immediate possessor. It is not clear if a person who is not the owner but does has custody of the dog may be liable.
Any person bitten can recover if they are lawfully present at the place where the dog bit occurs.
Defenses such as provocation or contributory negligence may be available even though not specifically allowed in the statute.[liv]
Michigan also has the narrow version statute.[lv]
Ohio has an example of the broader statute:
The owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an individual who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, keeper, or harborer, or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the owner's, keeper's, or harborer's property.[lvi] (Emphasis added.)
The critical points of this statute include:
Relief is available for “any person.”[lvii]
Covers “damage.” This is a broader term, including harm to property as well as the person, but most likely does not include emotional harm.[lviii]
Can recover against owner, keeper and harborer[lix] of dogs.
List of individuals not obtaining the protection of the statute.
Other states with a broader application include New Hampshire and Nebraska.[lx]
In a New Jersey case, a five-year-old plaintiff was bitten by a chained up dog at the back of the defendant’s business premises. Plaintiff had initially been brought to the premises by his father, who left him to be watched by others. While there is no doubt the defendant’s dog bit plaintiff, there was a jury question as to whether the child was a trespasser where the bite occurred, and the court ponders further, can a child under seven be a trespasser? With respect to more innocent trespassers like young children, as well as those lawfully on the property, the Court allowed that contributory negligence may still bar recovery to the statutory cause of action.
In a New Hampshire case, the injury was occasioned by a small white dog running toward a person on a bike, where the person lost balance and fell, causing significant injury even thought the dog never touched the individual.[lxi] The court found a possible violation of the statute saying of the injured party. “The plaintiff did not rely on the "mere presence" of the dog; he alleged specific mischievous actions by the animal that were causally related to his injuries.”
One fact pattern has resulted in different outcomes in different states. The question is whether an individual who works at a kennel is a “person” under the strict liability statues, and is thus able to recover for dog bites obtained when working with dogs. In a 1993 Oklahoma case, the court found that the strict liability statute did apply where owner left a dog with commercial kennel and a handler was bitten. The court used a very narrow definition of owner, and the dissent has the better reasoned opinion[lxii]. An Ohio opinion reached the opposite result on almost the same facts.[lxiii] As a point of policy it does not seem fair to place tort liability on an absent owner when the injured party is a commercial handler of animals and owner did not fail to disclose an unusual risk. This is particularly the case when it will normally be impossible to know whether there has been provocation by the human of the animal.
IX. Defenses for Owner
Any claim based upon tort concepts has the potential of being denied by courts based upon the conduct of the injured party. If it can be shown that just before a dog bite occurred the injured party hit the dog with a shovel, or kicked the dog, then the owner should not be liable since the injured party initiated the incident. In each state, the availability of tort defenses differs and most of the differences do not relate to the fact that animals are part of the issue. Some of the terms that come up in this area include: contributory negligence,[lxiv] comparative negligence,[lxv] assumption of risk,[lxvi] and wilful provocation.[lxvii] An extensive collection of the cases can be found at 11 ALR5th 127, “Intentional Provocation, Contributory or Comparative Negligence, or Assumption of Risk as Defense To Action For Injury By Dog” by Jay Zitter. This discussion seeks to explore just a few of these related issues.
A Montana case is illustrative of both the issue of provocation and contributory negligence.[lxviii] Plaintiff was bitten by defendant’s dog while talking over a fence. While leaning against the fence, the plaintiff had his arm and hand over the edge of the fence extending into the defendant’s yard. The defendant’s dog jumped up once and missed and then when plaintiff resumed this posture the dog jumped a second time and bit the plaintiff. Montana has a strict liability statute. After noting that there was a split of authority as to whether the defense of contributory negligence should be available for violation of strict liability statute, the court decided it will not be available in Montana.[lxix] In seeking to use the defense of provocation, the dog owner claimed the plaintiff provoked the dog in two different ways. First, he argued that several weeks earlier the plaintiff, who is a neighbor, had chased the dog out of his yard with a metal pole. The court held:
We do not dispute the Days' claim that a dog is capable of remembering specific instances from its past. We nevertheless conclude, as a matter of law, that Stroop's act of chasing Stogie with a fence post four to six weeks prior to being bitten was not provocation under § 27-1-715, MCA. An incident so remote in time cannot be considered provocation under the terms of this statute.
The second claim of the dog’s owner was that the extending of his hands and forearms over the defendants fence and into the dogs “turf” constituted provocation.
[E]xtending his hands and forearms into the Days' property was not provocation. There was no testimony that Stroop thrust his hands toward the dog or made any quick or threatening gestures. Stroop's hands were lawfully on the Days' property. Mere presence on the property of another does not amount to provocation. Conduct such as Stroop resting his arms on the fence and allowing his hands and forearms to dangle over the Days' property cannot be considered provocation under any reasonable interpretation of that term.
One area of conflict is whether contributory negligence can be a defense if the defendant is strictly liable for the animal’s actions. Under the provisions of the Rest. § 515, contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability. However, if plaintiff knowingly and unreasonably subjects himself to the risk of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal, a defense is available.[lxx] For example, if a person voluntarily enters a boxing ring to wrestle a bear, that person cannot later hold the owner strictly liable for an injury inflicted by the bear. One court dealt with the issue of whether an owner of a vicious dog would be strictly liable if the injured party is a trespasser:
Although owners of known vicious dogs should be absolutely liable even to trespassers, the conduct of the victim remains relevant to the determination of liability. Not all trespassers are alike; "trespasser" includes both the burglar and the uninvited infant. In analyzing the relative rights of the dog owner and the "trespasser," we believe it is important to look beneath the label and at the realities of their relationship. Some trespassers, such as those who enter premises for criminal purposes, ordinarily should have no claim upon an owner. With respect to more innocent trespassers, as well as those lawfully on the property, contributory negligence may still bar recovery.[lxxi]
Dog bites result in approximately 44,000 facial injuries in US hospitals each year. This represents between 0.5% and 1.5% of all emergency room visits. Every 40 seconds, someone in the United States seeks medical attention for a dog bite. Male patients slightly outnumber females in most studies. Unfortunately children comprise 60% of the dog bite victims. Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age. The face is the most frequent target (77% of all injures). Mail carriers are an exception where 97% involve the lower extremities. We see an unusual number of dreadful injuries each spring. Severely injured patients stay an average of 4.2 days in the hospital. Dog bites cause an average of 18 deaths a year.
Almost $165 million is spent treating dog bites in the United States for the estimated 800,000 dog bite related injuries requiring treatment each year. 70% of dog bites occur on the owner's property. Type injuries cuts
abrasions tissue loss & avulsion
lacerations crushing wounds
punctures fractured bones
These wounds potentially result in disfiguring scars. The central target area for the face includes the lips, nose, and cheeks. Dog bites are becoming more common with a 37% increase in medically treated cases between 1986 to 1994 (dog population rose less than 2%)
Dog human interaction
The vast majority of bites are by pet dogs and happen when people are engaged in socially acceptable behavior in appropriate places. They generally (61%) occur close to dog's home or home of the bitten person. Typically (77%) injuries are by friendly dogs known to the bitten person. In one study of an urban emergency room of children less than 4 years old, 47% were bitten by their dog and 90% were bitten at home. When broadly defining provocation, almost half of all injuries are provoked. Children aged 5 or younger are more likely to provoke animals.
Hounds are less likely to injure than working or sporting breeds. Puppies are also more likely to injure than an adult dog.
There are social trends towards training and keeping dangerous animals. Aggressive guard dogs are trained for self protection. While any dog can bite, the top biting breeds include:
Pit Bulls
Rotweilers
German Shepherds
Huskies
Doberman Pinschers
Chow Chows
Veterinary practitioners recognize aggressive behavior of dogs toward children as a correctable entity. Counter conditioning and desensitization will change this behavior. However, the first demonstration may result in a devastating injury.
Treatment
We must protect the patient from infection, tetanus, and possibly rabies after an investigation of the animal. Repair of the wounds may require simple closure, removal of injured tissue, and reconstructive surgery. Underlying nerve and bone injuries may need repair. Sometimes completely severed tissue can be replaced as a graft or reattached with microsurgical repair of tiny blood vessels. Sometimes we have to move other tissue into the defect to close or recreate the disfigured feature. Such reconstruction may need multiple operations over several years.
Scars are inevitable. Scars may be improved but never completely removed. Other techniques used to improve the deformity include dermabrasion (sanding of the skin), pressure scar modification, and camouflage make-up. None of this is very much fun for the patient or the family. Patients frequently become nervous of dogs. Parents often suffer from shame and guilt and suffer more than the child.
Characteristics of biting dogs
The increase in population of large dogs has resulted in an increased severity of bites. German shepherds were identified as the breed involved in 44% of all bite cases but accounted for only 22% of license registrations. Small purebred dogs accounted for less than 20% of bites but more than 40% of registrations. The pit bull terrier is a common cause of urban dog bite injuries in children. The major problem is that they are frequently (94%) unprovoked. These dogs are also freely roaming animals (67%).
The tendency for dogs to bite is the product of many factors. Some breeds have a genetic predisposition towards aggressiveness. There is less tendency to bite with early socialization to people, training, quality of care and supervision. Factors that may increase the tendency to bite include maltreatment, behavior of the victim, and possibly the weather.
Dangerous situations
invading dog's territory
threat to dog's family
threat to dog
jealous dog
You must be careful to avoid:
approaching or bending over dogs especially if they are lying quietly
approaching them immediately after entering their territory
teasing or waking them
playing with them till they become overexcited
Ten rules DO NOT
hold your face close to a dog
allow dogs to roam unleashed
approach a strange dog
tease a dog
startle a dog
disturb a dog that is sleeping, eating, or caring for puppies
leave a small child and dog alone
omit vaccination of a dog
leave a dog alone with strangers
ignore the warning signals of aggressive behavior
A Threatened Dog Often Bites
Never run from or scream at a dog.
Do not challenge the dog by staring it right in the eye.
Be as still as possible if approached by an unfamiliar dog.
If a dog knocks you over, roll into a ball and stay still.
Children
Tell an adult if you see a stray dog or one acting strangely.
If a dog bites you, tell an adult RIGHT AWAY!
Dog Owners CAN Help
Spay / neuter your dog, this can calm them down.
Train your dog in obedience.
DO NOT play aggressive games with your dog.
Keep your dog healthy, an unnoticed injury can make a dog aggressive.
Follow leash laws.
Unsocialized dogs that are left outside are more likely to bite than those maintained as house dogs.
Sitemap
