Click to e-mail any question

If you or a loved one has been bitten by a dog, get immediate medical treaIt is important to identify the animal that bit you, because if it is a stray and you cannot identify it, you're facing the possibility of having to submit to treatment for rabies, which can be painful. Also, if you were attacked by a dog or any wild animal being kept by a person, you probably are entitled to receive compensation from the animal's owner, and you might really need that compensation to pay your medical bills, reimburse you for lost income, pay for cosmetic surgery in the future, and help you overcome the pain and suffering from your injuries. (See Legal rights of a dog bite victim.)

After that, get medical attention. You will be in good company, because 1,000 Americans arrive in emergency rooms every day of the year because of dog bites alone! If you are wounded on the face, insist on treatment by a plastic surgeon because emergency room doctors are great at keeping people alive but not necessarily the best at making stitches and wounds look good. After that, be sure to follow the directions of the physician and take all the medications that are prescribed (except for the painkillers, which usually are at your discretion). You might also be ordered to stay out of the sun, use sun block, use scar reduction lotion, change bandages, report for follow up treatment, report for removal of stitches, massage the healing areas, etc. If so, do it!

The decision as to whether you need rabies shots must be left to your doctor. Shots are not always called for, because rabies may not be in your geographic area. Don't be alarmed if your physician tells you that you don't need this painful treatment.

If the dog owner is insured, you might get a call from an insurance company representative. You should ask him or her for the following information:

Name of insurance company
Address of his or her office
Telephone number
Claim number
Name of the person who is insured
The amount of money available to pay medical expenses (not everything, just medical expenses)
Do not do any of the following:
Do not discuss money, payment of money, settlement, injury value or anything else involving money
Do not set up an appointment
Do not write a letter or a memo
Do not permit yourself to be tape recorded
Do not allow the victim to be photographed
Do not discuss who is responsible
Do not accept any money
If you have questions call Jack I. Hyatt 410-486-1800

The essence of strict liability is the dog owner's knowledge that the dog had a dangerous propensity. The victim can prove that the dog had a dangerous propensity in a variety of ways, some of which are listed above. However, proof of merely the propensity is not sufficient to hold the dog owner liable; the victim also has to prove that the dog owner knew or should have known that the dog had done the things that established the propensity.

The action of the dog that injured the victim in the current case must be essentially the same as the action that the dog owner previously knew or should have known of. In other words, one who knows that his large dog likes to jump on people will be charged with knowledge of a dangerous propensity, but knowledge of this particular dangerous propensity will not help establish the claim of a person who was bitten by the dog. To put it yet another way, the victim must prove that the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog's tendency to do essentially the same thing that later caused injury to the victim. Courts have held that the testimony of an expert witness can be helpful with regard to the scienter requirement. For example, in the Diane Whipple case, expert testimony was admitted to prove that the escalating series of acts by the dogs were a clear tip-off that they were headed toward committing serious violence against a person. However, courts also have held that expert testimony alone cannot establish the subjective knowledge of the dog owner.

Plaintiff argues the opinion of the expert that Mordecai was vicious and would have been vicious for several months is sufficient to allow the jury to find that defendants should have known of the dog's temperament. That opinion may have been evidence that the dog was in fact vicious, but it is not evidence that the defendants actually knew of the propensity or were aware of any manifestations of viciousness that would put them on notice. The burden was on plaintiff to prove the dog was vicious and that defendants knew of the dog's propensity.

An interesting issue arises where the dog owner admits that his dog previously bit a person, but claims that the prior victim provoked the dog. Despite the provocation, the trial court ruled that the dog was vicious and the owner knew or had notice of the dog's vicious tendencies. If you have questions call Jack I. Hyatt 410-486-1800

Sitemap