A dog attacked my 3 yr. old daughter

What the hell is MadMax doing? You should already have taken possession of this guy's house for IROCit. Lawyers....never around when you need one.

 

I'm sorry to hear about the incident. I was bitten in the face by a German Sheperd when I was 6. I couldn't go back to school for a month. Minimal scarring, but everything is fine now. I'm sure normalcy will return for your daughter.

 

My family did win a 15K lawsuit from the incident. The German Sheperd was leashed to a chain that was 30 yards long.

 

Get an attorney. I didn't even read this thread for some time because it's such a terrible thing to happen, both to your daughter, and to you and the rest of the family. It made me upset reading the title. I can imagine what you are all going through. This can have an impact on your daughter... I hope it's not long term.

I was attacked by a dog when was I about four. Almost put my eye out. I had to have the series of rabies injections in the stomach, because the dog hadn't had it's shots. (this was in the early '50's) To this day I turn white when I get an injection. Thankfully, for some reason, it didn't make me afraid of dogs, just that dog, which belonged to my grandfather, and lived to be 18 years old on his place in East Texas.

From reading your last post, IROC it, I would defintely get representation and sue. Seriously, you just don't know how this will play out with your daughter. If you do nothing, then something does turn out to be a long term problem emotionally and/or physically (probably not, certainly we all hope not, but how can you know?), then it will be hard to get redress for what was inexcusable on the homeowner's part. Don't take a chance. The clock is already running on the how long you have to file a suit, how fresh the incident is in your mind and the minds of the other witnesses, and so on.

Good luck to your daughter, and to you and your family.

 

I can't believe she is doing that what an idiot ~ she should be jumping at the opportunity to pay for your little girls medical care.

What does she think you won't sue her? This is clear-cut negligence on the homeowners’ part and now they're adding a dose of insult. Unbelievable.

 

Definitely consult an attorney soon. I would think if she sells the house before anything happens that might muddy the waters even more, since she won't have the insurance policy to help cover costs. Not sure about that though.

 

Most homeowner's insurance policies include liability.

So if she had homeowner's insurance, she has liability coverage.

Just get her insurance co. info from her and call them.

 

I remember from my law classes that (at least in 1994), in the state of Texas, it is "first bite, no foul", meaning the owner could not have forseen her dog biting someone else, and is therefore not liable. If the dog has bitten someone in the past, animal or human, then the owner is fully liable.

Be sure and talk to a lawyer. I'm thinking your neighbor may already have.

 

"One-bite states"

A "one-bite state" (also referred to as a "one free bite" state) adheres to the ancient "one-bite rule." This rule acts as both a shield and a sword, in that it shields dog owners from liability for some dog bites, while it imposes liability (acts like a sword) for other dog bites. Specifically, it provides that:

* The dog owner (and everyone else who is connected with the dog) is privileged (or protected) from liability as to the first injury caused by the dog, unless the owner's (or other person's) negligence caused the injury to occur.
* The dog owner (and possibly other people, such as harborers and keepers) will be held strictly liable for dog bites and other harm caused by a known dangerous propensity of the dog. For example, if the dog previously bit someone, and the owner knew about it, then the owner will be responsible every time the dog bites anyone else. Liability results from keeping a dog that was known to hurt people. The key to this type of liability is knowledge (which the law often refers to as "scienter").

For more information about the "one-bite rule," see The One-Bite Rule on this website.

Even if you live in a one-bite state, keep in mind that owners and others will be held liable for (a) negligence, (b) violation of a leash law or other municipal law that leads to injury (see below for more information), (c) intentional conduct involving the use of a dog, and (d) outrageous or reckless behavior involving the use of a dog.

The "one-bite states" do not have dog bite statutes, with the exception of Georgia, Maine and Pennsylvania. This means that a non-lawyer will not be able to find the law. Only a person who is skilled in legal research will be able to form a competent legal opinion about the particularities of dog bite law in these states. This makes it even more important to retain an attorney if your case arises in a "one-bite state."

Here is a list of the "one-bite states":

* Alaska
* Arkansas
* Georgia (see below)
* Idaho
* Kansas
* Maine (see below)
* Maryland
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Nevada
* New Mexico
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oregon
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Vermont
* Virginia

Negligence
In every jurisdiction, a person is liable for all losses and damages that result from his or her negligence. With certain exceptions, dog owners, people who handle dogs, people who harbor dogs, and everyone else connected in any way with a dog can be held responsible if their negligence causes injuries.

Negligence is usually defined as an unreasonable action, or unreasonable omission to take action or give a warning. An example of an unreasonable action would be a dog owner letting go of his dog's leash when another dog approaches, so that the dogs can "play." An unreasonable omission might be the failure to keep a dog away from guests, where the dog is known to play too roughly and knock people down. When an adult invites a child into the adult's home, the courts of many states say that a "special relationship" exists between that adult and child, requiring the adult to take more precautions than if the guest was an adult.

Another form of negligence is called "negligence per se." It refers to the consequence of breaking a law designed to prevent harm to people. For example, failing to abide by the leash law constitutes negligence per se if, because the dog is unleashed, it causes harm to a person.

The negligent act or omission to act must be the proximate cause of the losses. Proximate cause is a unique legal concept. Basically it means that the harmful result must be closely related to the negligent act or omission. For example, if a dog digs under a fence and gets out and hurts someone, that will be considered the fault of the dog's owner, and that negligence would be considered the proximate cause of the harm inflicted. However, if the dog gets loose and the victim, seeing it running around, decides to walk around the block but gets a heart attack because of the walk, there would be at least a big legal battle over whether the loose dog was the proximate cause of the heart attack.

The victim must be a person to whom the dog owner owes a legal duty. For example, the mother of a child victim who is bitten in the mother's presence is a person to whom a duty is owed. However, the child's best friend who was not a witness to the attack is not owed a duty even though he or she might suffer terrible emotional distress as a direct result of the injuries to the best friend.

The victim's own negligence sometimes is a cause of an accident. Depending on the comparative negligence (or comparative fault) laws in the state whose law applies to that accident, the victim's negligence will hurt or even destroy the possibility of receiving full compensation. For example, if the victim is walking his dog without a leash, and the handler of the attacking dog also is walking her dog without a leash, and the victim is injured trying to keep the dogs from fighting, it is probable that the victim will be held responsible for some part of his own injury. The consequence of such negligence depends on the law of the state where the accident happened:

* 5 jurisdictions apply the law of contributory negligence. This is an ancient doctrine that says that as little as 1% fault on the part of the victim will reduce his claim to nothing! Those jurisdictions are Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
* 13 states have "pure" comparative fault, meaning that there is no minimum threshold of negligence that the tortfeasor must meet in order for the victim to get compensated. In a "pure" comparative fault state, the victim who proves that the tortfeasor was 50% responsible would receive 50% of the monetary value of his losses and damages.
* 22 states have a 51% threshold, meaning that the tortfeasor must be 51% (or more) responsible for the accident, as compared with the victim, or else the victim gets nothing. In the example given above, if the victim was held to be 50% responsible and the other dog owner was held 50% responsible, the victim would receive nothing because the dog owner's (or handler's) conduct did not meet the threshold figure. If there is more than one tortfeasor, then some states hold that any particular tortfeasor has to have a higher percentage of negligence than the victim, while others require that the combined total for all of the tortfeasors has to be 51%.
* 11 states have a 50% threshold, so the victim would be entitled to recover 50% of his provable losses.

Some people are responsible for the negligence of others. In other words, some people have to pay for losses that they do not cause. This is called respondent superior. Examples are:

* Employers whose employees are negligent during the course and scope of their duties for the employer.
* People who direct the actions of someone else and expose them or the public to the risk of harm, or a greater risk of harm than usual.

There are exceptions to the usual rules of negligence:

* A government agency or employee can be sued for negligence only within the rules established by the government entity. In other words, if the government has not consented to be sued for something, it cannot be.
* A young child may be deemed incapable of negligence. For example, an 18-month-old baby will not be held comparatively negligent for pulling the tail of a dog.

Some victims cannot sue for negligence. Generally, people who assume the risk of injury cannot sue after being injured, because they are deemed to have consented to the injury. For example, veterinarians generally cannot sue for dog bites, unless the dog owner did something out of the ordinary that resulted in the injury. This is generally referred to as the "fireman's rule" or even "veterinarian's rule."

There are other complications that arise in the negligence context (although they are often present in the strict liability cases also). Here are two of them:

* When an accident happens in "State A" and the victim lives in "State B," there might be a conflict of laws: one state might have strict liability laws while the other might require the victim to prove that the dog was dangerous or the owner was negligent. This conflict requires application of the principles of jurisdiction, residence and choice of laws.
* When two or more persons are responsible for an accident, some states have decided that each tortfeasor is responsible for all of the damages (so if one is insured but the other is not, the victim can recover 100% of his or her losses from the one who is). This is called joint and several liability. Other states have determined, however, that (a) each defendant is responsible only for his proportionate share of the general damages (i.e., the pain and suffering, compensation for disfigurement, and other non-economic losses) but any one defendant still can be "hit" with all of the economic losses, (b) only tortfeasors who are at least some percentage at fault (i.e., 20%) can be held responsible for paying all of the losses, or (c) other variations (see Footnote 1, below). This can result in a completely blameless victim receiving only a percentage of rightful compensation for his or her damages and losses.

Lay persons therefore need to understand that issues pertaining to negligence are complicated and generally beyond the scope of lay understanding. It requires an experienced tort lawyer to render a reliable opinion as to whether an act or omission constitutes negligence, and how the related rules will be applied in any particular state.

link

 

based on what kingcheetah submitted, and i'm no lawyer, but it looks like you can win this law suit. i'd go after it esp since she's acting this way. you wouldn't want this to happen to someone else after you've seen this happen to your daughter. who knows...it might have bitten someone else before too and she's just lying. how are these things reported?

good luck to you.

 

I agree with Ruby, and IROC, don't feel wrong or guilty about this...you are totally within your right to file a lawsuit if you want to (just consult a good lawyer)...more than anything, the owner is most responsible for everything that has occurred to you and your family. You sound like a very nice person, but don't let other people take advantage just because you're a nice guy.

 

IROC - my mental health take would be this (i work in ptsd) - if your daughter and son exhibit signs of stress from the attack for a month or so, that would be normal. if it starts to be three and four months, and they are noticably altered - fear, anxiety, easy startle, nightmares, etc - they may be having a prolonged stress reaction and a sort of childhood ptsd.

now, their reaction seems like a normal part of healthy childhood coping, it is not unusual.

BUT i do not think it would be unwise to search for counsellors at this point; early intervention can help prevent long term stress. I would specifically recommend searching for counsellors with experience with kids and ptsd or kids and trauma.

And i would save the receipts from the counselling, probably...

 

This is turning into a bad Sally Fields movie. IROC It, I would have punched the owners of the dog if I had the chance.

Seriously, though, it's making a turn for the worse. DANG laws are on your side, IROC. What the lady said to you is a bunch of cROC.

 

I hope she recovers and this doesn't lead to any fear of dogs or animals in general. I know an episode like this can lead to fears.

I was bit by a dog we used to own. I was maybe 11 and we had a Great Dane. He was still fairly young but was large. We were playing and something happened (he got too worked up or something) and bit me on the right side of my face. It left a shallow furrow along the cheek almost to my mouth, but missed my eye by less than an inch. Luckily it didn't leave a scar, but the dog wasn't long for the household.

 

Hey IROCit

I know that some of us here have gotten irate over this. I just wanted to tell you that it's because we hate to think about that happening to your little girl. It's like having a friend get messed up - the first thing we want to do is hunt down the people responsible.

I hope that you guys are compensated properly for what you're going through.

 

You continue to amaze me with your ON-THE-MONEY posts. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Coming from a MEXICAN: Prepare for AFTER them beans are eaten!!!

 

That's excellent news IROC. I definitely agree. They should at least pay for the medical fees so that you don't sue. But if they continue to be jerks about, sue for what you can get (even tho I generally don't believe in lawsuits). Honestly if my kid (in the future) was bitten by a dog and I later discovered that it had previously bitten someone else, I'd be so upset the first person didn't report it and try to get it removed. And as the legal mojo states about the "one bite" rule, this would come in handy.

Good luck to you and your family.

 

Hope it works out for you. I cannot believe these people are being such jackasses about it.