Dog Bite Victim Representation
Assessing Claims and Managing the Unique Challenges of Negotiating and Litigating Dog Bite Cases
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am PacificWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Paul H. Cannon, Simmons and Fletcher, Houston Todd Berkey, Partner, Law Offices of Edgar Snyder & Associates, Pittsburgh
PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS, DOG OWNERS
1. State the following as to each defendant: a. Full names;
b. Any other names you have used or been known by; c. Marital status at the time of the incident;
d. Present marital status; e. Present home address;
f. Occupation at the time of the incident: g. Present occupation;
h. Employer(s) at the time of the incident; i. Present employer(s);
j. Dates of birth.
2. State the identity of the person/persons who owned the property at [location] at the time of the incident.
ANSWER:
3. State whether you rented or leased the property at [location] at the time of the incident.
ANSWER:
4. If you rented or leased the property at [location] from any person(s) for all or part of the two (2) year period up to and including [date], state the name(s) and all current or past addresses of the landlord(s) of the property and/or any leasing agent or management company which were used in connection with the rental.
ANSWER:
5. State specifically the portions of the premises that were leased or rented. ANSWER:
6. Attach hereto a copy of all lease agreements between the defendants and their landlord for a two (2) year period up to and including [date].
ANSWER:
7. State whether there were any verbal agreements between defendants and their landlord other than those contained in the written lease, and if so, state the following:
a. Any and all provisions that were not in writing;
b. The dates that any and all such provisions went into effect; c. How the provisions were communicated.
ANSWER:
8. State whether you had any homeowners or renters insurance at the time of the incident on [date]. If you did have insurance, please state:
b. The policy number;
c. The effective dates of the policy;
d. The amounts of all coverage, including premises liability;
e. Attach a copy of the policy, including the policy declarations, that was in effect at the time of plaintiff's incident.
ANSWER:
9. State the names and addresses of all eye witnesses to the incident in question known to the defendants, defendants’ attorney, agents, investigators or other representatives.
ANSWER:
10. State the names and present addresses of all witnesses who have any knowledge concerning the facts leading up to or the events immediately preceding the incident in question which were known to the defendants, defendants’ attorney, agents, investigators and/or other representatives.
11. State the names and present addresses of all witnesses who have any knowledge concerning the facts immediately after or subsequent to the incident in question which are known to defendants, defendants’ attorney, agent, investigators or other representatives.
ANSWER:
12. Are any of the people listed in the answer to Interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 relatives, agents, servants, employees or representatives of the defendants? If yes, identify the same.
ANSWER:
13. Please state whether the defendants, defendants’ agents, attorneys or representatives have any statements in any form (i.e. oral, typed, written, taped, transcribed, etc.) in their possession from any person, including the plaintiffs and defendants, who has either witnessed this incident or has any knowledge about plaintiff’s claims, this incident, Plaintiff's damages or any defense to this action.
14. As to each statement referred to in Answer to Interrogatory 13, please state: a. Whether the statement is in question and answer or in narrative form; b. Whether the person giving it received a copy of said statement; c. Whether the statement was signed;
d. If the statement was not signed, the method by which it was adopted or approved;
e. The name and present address of the person by whom the statement was taken;
f. When and where the statement was taken; and g. Attach copies of all statements.
ANSWER:
15. List the names and present addresses of all investigators, representatives, or others who have investigated the incident and/or claim referred to in plaintiffs’ Complaint, including any and all representatives of [Insurance Company] and/or insurance companies on behalf of defendants, in regard to either liability or damages. With respect to each such person, state the following:
b. Present employment affiliation;
c. The names and addresses of each and every party whom the person contacted;
d. The date when contacted;
e. Whether an attempt was made to procure a statement in any form; f. The results of such attempts;
g. Whether said investigator or representative submitted a report to any other persons; and
h. If the answer to the preceding sub-interrogatory is in the affirmative, attach a copy of said report to these answers, if said report is in writing. If oral, give a summary of said report.
ANSWER:
16. State whether the defendants were at any time the owner or proprietor of the dog which bit plaintiff on or about [date]. If not, state the name and address of the owner(s) of the dog that bit plaintiff.
17. State where said dog was kept or housed at the time the plaintiff was bitten (i.e. inside, in a certain room, outside, in a certain area, location or designation) and for a period of 3 months prior to the incident.
ANSWER:
18. State the exact location of the dog when it bit plaintiff. ANSWER:
19. State the names and present addresses of all persons present on the property of the defendants, including those who were inside the premises, for a one-hour time period before and after the defendants’ dog bit plaintiff.
ANSWER:
20. State where the dog was housed or kept in the twenty-four (24) hour period prior to when plaintiff was bitten (in other words, state the whereabouts of the dog for a twenty-four (24) hour period prior to the occurrence).
21. As of [date], was there a dog license for the dog which bit plaintiff? If so, please state:
a. When that license was obtained; b. Who obtained that license;
c. The last time prior to plaintiff's incident that the defendants obtained a license for the dog;
d. From what entity was the license obtained. ANSWER:
22. Please state whether the dog had ever been registered for any purpose with any entity, agency or governmental municipality. If so, state:
a. The name and address of the entity/agency;
b. When the dog was last registered with any agency prior to the time the dog bit the plaintiff;
c. Who registered the dog with the entity/agency; ANSWER:
23. State the name(s) and current address(es) of the person(s) who was/were responsible for the direct supervision, care and control of the dog for a twenty-four (24) hour period prior in time to when the plaintiff was bitten.
ANSWER:
24. At the time of the incident, state whether said dog was restrained, chained, locked up, caged or in any other way controlled. If so, state the exact nature as to how the dog was restrained.
ANSWER:
25. State your version of how this incident occurred. State all facts upon which defendants support their version of how this incident occurred, and state from what source defendants received the information and/or facts.
ANSWER:
26. State specifically your version of all events that took place after plaintiff was bitten up to and including the time that he fell.
27. State the specific area where plaintiff fell, including a description of the surface on which he fell.
ANSWER:
28. State whether there were any warnings, warning signs, Beware of Dog signs or any other type of signage placed on defendants’ property or premises at the time when the plaintiff was bitten. If so, please describe the exact nature and location of any such signs.
ANSWER:
29. State whether there were any verbal or oral warnings regarding the dog given to the plaintiff prior in time to when the plaintiff was bitten. If so, set forth the name and address of each person who issued the warnings, the exact substance of each and every warning, the date and time of each warning, and the name and address of all persons present when each of the warnings were issued.
30. Please state whether the dog had ever displayed or exhibited any prior vicious propensities or tendencies. If so, please state:
a. Each and every prior incident when the dog displayed any vicious propensities or tendencies;
b. All general knowledge which the defendants possessed regarding the dog's prior vicious propensities or tendencies.
ANSWER:
31. State whether the dog had ever attacked, mauled, bitten, chased or growled at any other person or in any other way displayed any vicious propensities or tendencies toward any other person. If so, please state each and every prior occasion when the dog displayed such propensities or tendencies.
ANSWER:
32. Please state the following regarding the dog: a. Type (breed);
b. Height;
c. Weight;
f. Name. ANSWER:
33. Please state whether the defendants were aware of or ever became aware prior to the date of the incident that the dog ever exhibited or displayed any vicious propensities or tendencies or had ever attacked, mauled, bitten, chased or growled at any other person, including children. If so, please state:
a. Each and every prior incident when the dog displayed any vicious propensities or tendencies;
b. All general knowledge which the defendants possessed regarding the dog's prior vicious propensities or tendencies.
ANSWER:
34. Do the defendants or defendants’ agents, servants, employees or representatives have any photographs or video of the dog which bit the plaintiff? If so, please attach reproductions of the photographs to the answers to these interrogatories. (Plaintiff will bear the costs of reproduction of any such photographs).
35. Attach hereto any and all written documents between defendants and any housing agencies, police, or other entities regarding the incident.
ANSWER:
36. Attach hereto the complete investigation of defendants’ insurance carrier’s file with the exception of those portions which are not discoverable.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA A and B, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs, v.
X and Y, husband and wife; X, individually; Z BOROUGH; and, Z BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION Case No.
COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, A and B, husband and wife, by and through their attorneys, and file the within Complaint in a Civil Action and in support thereof aver the following:
1. Plaintiffs, A and B, husband and wife, are adult individuals and residents of the County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a current residence located at 123 Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, A and B, were legally married and resided together as husband and wife.
3. Defendants, X and Y, husband and wife, are adult individuals and residents of the County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 456 Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 12345.
4. Defendant, X, is an adult individual and a resident of the County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 456 Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 12345.
5. Defendant, Z, is a governmental agency and is a borough organized under the laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has its municipal offices located at 789 Main Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
6. Defendant, Z Police Department, is a governmental agency and is a borough police department owned and operated by Defendant, Z, and has its offices located at 123 Main Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
7. Defendant, Z, and Defendant, Z Police Department, are local governmental entities subject to liability in this matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).
8. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, either individually and/or jointly owned a certain Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, which dog was a police dog used within the K-9 unit of the Z Police Department.
9. Based on the foregoing allegations, at all times material hereto, Defendants, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, was/were the “owners” of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, as that term is defined by the Pennsylvania Dog Law and specifically 3 P.S. § 459-102 and were subject to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Dog Law as to said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.
10. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X, was employed by Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, as a police officer within the K-9 unit of the Z Police Department.
11. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog was assigned to Defendant, X, in conjunction with his official police duties as a K-9 officer.
12. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X, had as part of his job duty and/or responsibility the training of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog for use as a police dog and the continued training of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog for continued use as a police dog.
13. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X, as part of his job duties and/or responsibilities pursuant to his employment with Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, was responsible for the care, custody, control, and possession of said police dog at all times.
14. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X, was acting in the scope of his duties with Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, as the trainer, caretaker, and custodian of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog.
15. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, is/are liable for the careless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant, X, in the performance of his official police duties as the individual who is responsible for the care, custody, control, and possession of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).
16. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, were the keepers of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog and said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog resided with Defendants, X and Y, and was permitted to enter and remain on or about Defendants’ premises and residence with Defendants’ knowledge, permission, and consent.
17. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, had exclusive possession and control of and over said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog and were responsible for the care, custody, control, and restraint of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.
18. Based on the foregoing allegations, at all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, were the “owners” of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, as that term is defined by 3 P.S. § 459-102 and were subject to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Dog Law as to said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.
19. The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about March 28, 2011 at or about 11:00 a.m. at or on Any Street near the intersection of Any Street and Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, was a pedestrian on Any Street and was walking his dog in the vicinity of Defendants’ residence, which is located at or near the intersection of Any Street and Your Street.
21. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, knowingly caused, allowed, and/or permitted the above described Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog to be on Defendants’ premises without a leash, chain, or any other type of restraint preventing said dog from exiting Defendants’ premises.
22. The above-described actions of Defendants, X and Y, constituted a violation of 3 P.S. § 459-305 in that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog was not confined within Defendants’ premises or secured by means of a collar or chain so that it could not stray beyond Defendants’ premises.
23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, observed said dog on Defendants’ premises without a leash, chain, or any other type of restraint, and Plaintiff, A, started to turn around to walk away from Defendants’ residence and premises as a result of seeing said dog loose on Defendants’ premises.
24. At all times material hereto, as Plaintiff, A, was walking on Any Street and was attempting to turn to walk away from Defendants’ premises, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog ran over and off Defendants’ premises, onto Any Street, in a menacing and aggressive manner, toward Plaintiff, A, at a high rate of speed.
25. At all times material hereto, as Plaintiff, A, was attempting to walk away from Defendants’ premises, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog ran into the left leg of Plaintiff, A, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground, and further causing Plaintiff to suffer and sustain serious and possibly permanent injuries, as described more fully herein.
26. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X, uttered a verbal command to said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog in an attempt to stop the dog in its pursuit of Plaintiff, A; however, said command was ineffective in stopping the dog, which continued to pursue Plaintiff, A, in the manner described herein.
27. It is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog was pursuing either Plaintiff, A, directly, in a menacing and aggressive manner and/or was pursuing the dog of Plaintiff, A, and ran into Plaintiff during that pursuit.
28. It is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog had a history and/or a propensity of pursuing humans and/or domestic animals without provocation.
29. It is further believed and therefore averred that as a police dog, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog was specifically trained to pursue human beings and that Defendants, X, Z, and/or Z Police Department had actual knowledge of this fact.
30. The incident described herein constitutes an attack, as that term is defined by 3 P.S. § 459-102, in that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog deliberately pursued Plaintiff, A, and/or deliberately pursued the dog of Plaintiff, A.
31. Defendants, Z, and/or Z Police Department, and Defendants, X and Y, as both the owners and the keepers of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, harbored said dog in violation of 3 P.S. § 459-502-A, as said dog inflicted severe injury on Plaintiff, A, without provocation; attacked Plaintiff, A, without provocation; and had either a propensity and/or history of attacking human beings and/or domestic animals without provocation.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, A, was caused to suffer and sustain the following serious and severe injuries, some or all of which may be permanent in nature:
a. Left tibial plateau fracture requiring surgical intervention consisting of open reduction and internal fixation;
b. Permanent surgical scarring and disfigurement of the left lower extremity; c. Disability of the left lower extremity;
d. Pain of the left lower extremity; e. Weakness of the left lower extremity;
f. Sprain and strain of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, veins, vessels, skin, soft tissues, and other structures of the left lower extremity;
g. Other injuries the full nature and extent of which are not currently known. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, A, has suffered the following damages:
a. He has been and will be required to expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medications, therapies, and the services of nurses, with his past medical expenses being in excess of $1,500.00;
b. He has suffered and will continue to suffer great physical and mental pain, discomfort, distress, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures;
c. He has suffered permanent impairment to his left leg;
d. His general health, strength, and vitality have been impaired; e. He has been and will be deprived of his earnings;
f. His earning power has been reduced and permanently impaired; and, g. He has been permanently scarred and disfigured.
34. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, B, has suffered the following damages:
a. She has suffered a loss of consortium;
b. She has been deprived of the services, society, and comfort of her husband, Plaintiff, A; and,
c. She has incurred debt and expenses as a result of the injuries inflicted upon her husband, Plaintiff, A.
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs
v.
X and Y, husband and wife, Defendants
35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth at length herein.
36. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the direct and proximate result of all Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendants, X and Y, husband and wife, specifically, as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash the aforementioned Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog;
b. In failing to take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendants’ premises;
c. In failing to take any steps or measures to prevent the escape of said dog from Defendants’ premises;
d. In failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the actions of said dog in a safe and proper manner;
e. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendants knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic animals;
f. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to chase, pursue, and come into contact with Plaintiff, A, when Defendants knew or should have known said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic animals;
g. In failing to properly control said dog so it would not leave Defendants’ property to cause harm to another human being;
h. In failing to restrict, restrain, or prohibit said dog from coming into contact with and causing harm to a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
i. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A; and,
j. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, X and Y, in an amount in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Allegheny
County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE
A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs
v.
X, Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS
37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth at length herein.
38. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendant, X, specifically, as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash the aforementioned Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog;
b. In failing to take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendant’s premises;
c. In failing to enforce proper police procedures or to ensure that proper police procedures were followed that a K-9 officer who was charged with possession and control of a police dog kept said dog under control and restraint at all times;
d. In failing to take any steps or measures to prevent the escape of said dog from Defendant’s premises;
e. In failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the actions of said dog in a safe and proper manner;
f. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic animals;
g. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to chase, pursue, and come into contact with Plaintiff, A, when Defendant knew or should have known said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic animals;
h. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant had actual knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits of human beings;
i. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash said dog and/or take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendant’s premises when Defendant had actual knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits of human beings;
j. In failing to restrict, restrain, or prohibit said dog from coming into contact with and causing harm to a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
k. In failing to effectively command said dog in order to stop the dog from pursuing Plaintiff;
l. In failing to control said dog;
m. In failing to train and/or reinforce any training such that Defendant was capable of maintaining control over said dog at all times and in all situations;
n. In exposing the general public, including Plaintiff, A, to a police dog trained to engage in the pursuit of human beings when said dog was not adequately trained and/or reinforced in its training such that said dog would not constitute a danger to the general public;
o. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
p. In failing to properly train said dog to ensure it would obey all verbal commands;
q. In failing to ensure that said dog would obey all verbal commands before Defendant(s) allowed said dog to be placed in the custody and control of an officer; and,
r. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A.
39. Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, is/are liable for the negligent acts of its employee, Defendant X, regarding the care, custody, and control of the police dog in question pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, X; Z; and, Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, in an amount in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Allegheny County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENCE
A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs
v.
Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS
40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the same were set forth at length herein.
41. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendants, Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, specifically, as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to enforce proper police procedures or to ensure that proper police procedures were followed that a K-9 officer who was charged with possession and control of a police dog kept said dog under control and restraint at all times;
b. In failing to properly train its employees, including Defendant, X, regarding the care, custody, and control of police dogs;
c. In failing to set, create, enforce, disseminate, and/or publish guidelines, protocol, and/or procedures regarding the care, custody, and control of off duty police dogs;
d. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic animals;
e. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant had actual knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits of human beings;
f. In failing to train and/or reinforce any training such that Defendant was capable of maintaining control over said dog at all times and in all situations;
g. In exposing the general public, including Plaintiff, A, to a police dog trained to engage in the pursuit of human beings when said dog was not adequately trained and/or reinforced in its training such that said dog would not constitute a danger to the general public;
h. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
i. In failing to properly train said dog to ensure it would obey all verbal commands;
j. In failing to ensure that said dog would obey all verbal commands before Defendant(s) allowed said dog to be placed in the custody and control of an officer; and,
k. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, Z; and, Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, in an amount in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Allegheny County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
A, parent and natural guardian of B, a minor, Petitioner.
) ) ) )
ORPHANS COURT DIVISION No.
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT OF A MINOR’S CLAIM
AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, A, parent and natural guardian of your minor Petitioner, B, by and through her attorneys, EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and files the following Petition for Approval of Settlement of a Minor’s Claim, and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. Petitioner, A, is the parent and natural guardian of minor Petitioner, B. The minor’s date of birth is November 9, 2005, being 5 years of age at the time of subject accident, and 7 currently. Petitioners reside together at 123 Street Drive, Any City, Fayette County, Pennsylvania 12345.
2. On October 30, 2011, the minor Petitioner was bitten by a male yellow Labrador retriever or mixed breed dog named “Dog,” owned by X while on business property owned by the X, located at 456 Any Road, Any City, Fayette County, Pennsylvania 12345.
3. The minor Petitioner suffered a dog bite to his face, and was taken by private vehicle to Uniontown Hospital for evaluation. At Uniontown Hospital, Minor Petitioner received seven (7) sutures to the laceration on his left cheek. The sutures were removed by Minor Petitioner’s primary care physician on November 4, 2011. True and correct copies of selected Uniontown Hospital records and the November 4, 2011 Fayette Medical Associates office note are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A.” Additionally, photographs of Minor
Petitioner taken on the date of the incident are attached as Exhibit “B” and photographs of the Minor Petitioner taken on October 8, 2012 are attached as Exhibit “C”.
4. Petitioner, A, retained the law firm of XYZ, to represent the interests of the minor Petitioner, B, relative to the accident of October 30, 2011. Petitioner entered into a fee arrangement in the nature of a contingent fee, plus costs, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit “D”.
5. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (hereinafter “Department”) has paid Minor Petitioner’s incident-related medical bills, and is claiming a lien in the amount of Three Hundred Nineteen and 71/100 Dollars ($319.71). A true and correct copy of the Department’s Statement of Claim Summary is attached as Exhibit “E”.
6. The owner of the dog, X, is insured under a policy issued by Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company (hereinafter “Travelers”) which provides for liability insurance coverage.
7. Negotiations were entered into with Travelers, through its adjusters, and after numerous letters, telephone conversations, and an in-person settlement conference, Travelers has offered One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00) to settle Minor Petitioner’s liability claim against X and Travelers. Therefore, settlement was tentatively, pending this Honorable Court’s approval, negotiated whereby the minor Petitioner, B, was to receive One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00) as full and final settlement of his liability claim against X and Travelers relative to the incident.
8. Of the One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), Petitioners are requesting that Sixty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($60,000.00) be used to fund an annuity for the benefit of B. Said annuity shall provide guaranteed “periodic payments” beginning on the Minor’s eighteenth birthday, as follows:
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2023; $12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2024; $12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2025; $12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2026; and, $36,036.56 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2030.
The documentation applicable to the proposed structure/annuity is attached as Exhibit “F”. 9. Following its retention, the law firm of XYZ performed work on the case including but not limited to the following:
a. Met with your Petitioners on multiple occasions; b. Conducted necessary investigation of the incident; c. Photographed Minor Petitioner on multiple occasions;
d. Obtained the medical records of Minor Petitioner’s medical treatment;
e. Retained an expert medical witness to discuss the residual psychological problems which Minor would be expected to encounter as a result of this incident;
f. Documented Minor Petitioner’s injuries to the Insurers;
g. Contacted the medical providers to ensure that medical bills were billed properly and paid;
h. Negotiated with Travelers and secured the offer detailed herein; i. Worked with a structured settlement company to obtain the proposed
annuity/structure;
j. Contacted the medical providers to determine whether there were any outstanding bills;
k. Contacted and coordinated repayment of the Department’s lien; and, l. Prepared the within Petition for approval of the settlement.
10. The attorneys’ fee charged by XYZ, is 25% of the total settlement of One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), which totals Twenty Five Thousand Eighty and 00/100 Dollars ($25,080.00). Additionally, costs in the case for investigations, medical records and bills, and other expenses total Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and 54/100 Dollars ($4,759.54) for which the firm of SYZ respectfully requests to be reimbursed. A copy of the itemization of costs is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.
11. As stated above, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare made medical payments totaling Three Hundred Nineteen and 71/100 Dollars ($319.71) on Minor Petitioner’s behalf, and is seeking subrogation. The Department has agreed to accept Two Hundred Twenty Four and 81/100 Dollars ($224.81) as payment in full of its lien in this matter. A copy of correspondence from the Department is attached hereto as Exhibit “H”.
12. Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to approve the settlement of One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), and order distribution of the settlement funds as follows:
a. The sum of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,080.00) shall be paid to XYZ, representing its 25% fee;
b. The sum of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and 54/100 Dollars ($4,759.54) shall be paid to XYZ, representing costs incurred in pursuing the claim on behalf of the Minor Plaintiff;
c. The sum of Two Hundred Twenty Four and 81/100 Dollars ($224.81) shall be paid to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to satisfy its lien in this matter;
d. The sum of Sixty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($60,000.00) of the overall settlement of this matter shall be used to fund an annuity for the benefit of B. Said annuity shall provide guaranteed “periodic payments” beginning on the Minor’s eighteenth birthday, as follows:
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2023; $12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2024; $12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2025; $12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2026; and, $36,036.56 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2030.
e. The sum of Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Five and 65/100 Dollars ($10,255.65) representing the balance from the settlement monies received from Travelers, shall be deposited directly by the undersigned counsel into a federally insured bank of the Petitioners’ choosing and placed in the minor’s own name with the express restriction that no withdrawals shall be made until the minor achieves the age of 18, unless this Court orders otherwise.
13. A Proof of Deposit shall be filed with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court within sixty (60) days of the date of the Order entered herein.
14. Proof of funding of the annuity shall be filed with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court within sixty (60) days of the date of the Order entered herein.
15. It is requested that Petitioner, A, be authorized to execute any necessary documents on behalf of B, a minor, to settle all claims relative to the injuries and damages arising out of the incident described herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, A, respectfully request this Honorable Court approve total settlement of the liability claim of B, a minor for the sum of One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00) and order distribution as set forth above.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor,
Plaintiff, v.
X and Y, individually and as husband and wife; and Z,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION Case No.
SAMPLE COMPLAINT
Filed on behalf of: Plaintiff, A individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor
SAMPLE COMPLAINT – DOG OWNER & LANDLORD
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor, by and through her attorneys, and sets forth the following Complaint in Civil Action against Defendants, as follows:
1. Plaintiff, A, is an adult individual and the mother of minor-Plaintiff, B, with a current residence at 123 Main Street, Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15601.
2. Minor-Plaintiff, B, is a minor individual with a date of birth of December 5, 2006, who is currently six (6) years old, and who resides with her mother, Plaintiff, A, at 123 Main Street, Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15601.
3. Defendants, X and Y, are adult individuals and residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of Westmoreland with a last known address of 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
4. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants, X and Y, were husband and wife and were legally married and resided together at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
5. Defendant, Z, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of Westmoreland with a last known address of 789 Fake Avenue, Blairsville, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15717.
6. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z, owned, controlled, managed, and/or supervised the property and premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
7. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants, X and Y, leased the property located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627 from Defendant, Z
8. In the alternative, at all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z, permitted Defendants, X and Y, to gratuitously reside on the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
9. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z, was a licensed veterinarian and the father of Defendant, Y.
10. The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about June 11, 2011, at or on Defendants’ residence and premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
11. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, either individually and/or jointly as husband and wife, were the owners of an adult male Rottweiler dog known as “Dog,” within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Dog Laws found at 3 P.S. § 459-101, et seq.
12. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z, allowed, with his knowledge, consent, and permission, Defendants, X and Y, to keep the aforementioned male Rottweiler dog on the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, and minor-Plaintiff, B, were social guests at the residence and premises owned by Defendant, Z, and occupied and/or lease by Defendants, X and Y, as described herein.
14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, was in the kitchen area of the within described premises and minor-Plaintiff, B, was in the living/family room area of the within described premises premises, with Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son, who was six (6) years of age.
15. At all times material hereto, the within described Rottweiler dog, “Dog,” was in the living/family room area of the within described premises, with minor-Plaintiff, B, and with Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son.
16. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son was petting said Rottweiler dog and subsequently instructed minor-Plaintiff, B, that it was her turn to pet said dog.
17. At all times material hereto, minor-Plaintiff, B, was standing on the floor in front of said Rottweiler dog and was interacting with said dog by petting and/or hugging said dog.
18. At all times material hereto, as minor-Plaintiff, B, was drawing away from said dog after having pet and/or hugged said Rottweiler dog, said dog suddenly and without warning or provocation lunged at minor-Plaintiff’s face, attacking minor-Plaintiff and biting and grasping
her by the face with his teeth/mouth, and shaking Plaintiff by the face, causing minor-Plaintiff to suffer multiple lacerations and puncture wounds to her face.
19. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, permitted said Rottweiler dog to roam free without supervision when minor-Plaintiff, B, was visiting the home.
20. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, had actual knowledge that said dog had dangerous, hazardous, and vicious propensities to attack and/or bite without provocation and that said dog constituted a hazard to humans.
21. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, had actual knowledge that said dog had previously bitten at least two (2) other individuals, including Defendant, X’s, grandmother, and another adult individual by the name of “Man,” causing serious personal injuries to both individuals.
22. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Z, permitted and allowed said dog to remain on or about the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627, while Defendant, Z, had actual knowledge that said dog had previously viciously and violently attacked and bitten at least two (2) adult individuals.
23. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, never advised, warned, and/or informed minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and vicious propensities of said dog nor that the dog had the tendency to attack, bite, and/or pose a serious risk of harm to children and other individuals.
24. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described dog attack, minor-Plaintiff was caused to suffer and sustain serious, severe, and permanent personal injuries, hereinafter more fully described.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, minor-Plaintiff, B, suffered and sustained the following serious and severe personal injuries, some or all of which may be permanent:
a. Multiple lacerations, puncture wounds, and bite injuries to the nose, upper lip, right cheek, and face;
b. Swelling and redness;
c. Permanent scarring and disfigurement;
d. Permanent discoloration of the skin of her face; e. Pain of the nose, mouth, and face;
f. Emotional distress; g. Anxiety; and,
h. Other serious and severe injuries the full nature and extent of which are currently unknown.
26. As a further direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, minor-Plaintiff, B, has been damaged as follows:
a. She has suffered and will continue to suffer from great physical and mental pain, discomfort, distress, mental anguish, anxiety, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures;
b. She has been embarrassed and humiliated;
c. She has been permanently scarred and disfigured;
d. Her general health, strength, and vitality have been impaired;
e. Her earning power and capacity have been diminished and/or reduced; and,
f. She will be required in the future, after achieving the age of majority, to expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention,
hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines, and services of doctors and nurses.
27. As a further direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, Plaintiff, A, has been damaged as follows:
a. She has been and will be required in the future, until minor-Plaintiff achieves the age of majority, to expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines, and services of doctors and nurses.
COUNT I
A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor v. X and Y, individually and as husband and wife
28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 27, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.
29. The injuries and damages set forth herein were caused by and were a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Defendants, X and Y, generally as described herein, and specifically as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to properly restrain, house, cage, fence or leash said dog;
b. In failing to warn minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and hazardous propensities of said dog and its vicious tendencies;
c. In failing to be diligent and vigilant in the supervising of the actions of said dog in a constant and/or safe and proper manner;
d. In failing to protect the public in general and minor-Plaintiff in particular from the vicious and dangerous propensities of said dog by allowing the dog to roam free when Defendants knew or should have known of its dangerous propensities;
e. In allowing and permitting said dog to be placed in, around, and/or near minor-Plaintiff when they had actual or constructive notice of the fact that the dog had dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities and would act in an erratic behavior, especially around children;
f. In allowing and permitting said dog to be placed in, around, and/or near minor-Plaintiff when Defendants had actual knowledge that the dog had previously bitten two other individuals;
g. In allowing or permitting said dog to roam free without informing minor-Plaintiff and/or minor-Plaintiff of the potential harms and hazards that could come from the dog in question;
h. In permitting an attractive nuisance to exist such that the dog was not placed in a properly secured area, but instead was placed in close proximity to minor-Plaintiff when Defendants knew or should have known that minor-Plaintiff would be attracted to said dog and was, in fact, encouraged to interact with said dog by Defendants’ minor son;
i. In allowing said dog to be in contact with minor-Plaintiff despite the knowledge of the propensities of the dog to be dangerous and vicious and to take any and all steps necessary to eliminate the dog’s presence from the minor children;
j. In violating the local and state ordinances regarding restraint of animals and/or licensing procedures pursuant thereto;
k. In violating the Pennsylvania dog laws, including, but not limited to, §§ 459-502-A, 459-503-A, 459-504-A, 459-505-A, of Title 3 of the Pennsylvania Statutes;
l. In causing, allowing or permitting the dog to come into contact with minor-Plaintiff while said dog was not being supervised;
m. In failing to muzzle said dog at all times; n. In knowingly harboring a dangerous dog
o. In failing to keep said dog isolated and/or away from minor-Plaintiff despite the knowledge that the dog had vicious propensities and was known to attack humans without warning and/or provocation; and,
p. In failing to take any steps or any actions to prevent said dog from coming into contact with minor-Plaintiff at the time of the incident.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, A, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor, demand that Judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants, in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Westmoreland County, together with costs and interest.
COUNT II
A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor v. Z
30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.
31. The injuries and damages set forth herein were caused by and were a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Defendant, Z, generally as described herein, and specifically as set forth as follows:
a. in permitting and/or allowing tenants, lessees, and/or occupants to house and/or harbor dangerous dog, that being a Rottweiler in and on the premises in question when he had knowledge, actual or constructive, that said dog had dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities;
b. in failing to have the Rottweiler removed from the premises when he knew or should have known of the vicious, hazardous and dangerous propensities of the aforementioned Rottweiler;
c. in renting, leasing, and/or gratuitously lending a residential premises to tenants when Defendant knew or should have known that said tenants would house upon the premises a Rottweiler dog known to Defendant to have dangerous and vicious propensities;
d. in failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the tenants to ensure that they did not own pets with dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities; and, e. In failing to warn minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and
hazardous propensities of said dog and its vicious tendencies.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, A, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor, demand that Judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants, in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Westmoreland County, together with costs and interest.
STATE DOG BITE/DOG LEASH LAWS Alabama
Liability:
Liability of owner of dog for injuries to person bitten or injured while upon property owned or controlled by owner, etc.
If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be, the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so bitten or injured, but such liability shall arise only when the person so bitten or injured is upon property owned or controlled by the owner of such dog at the time such bite or injury occurs or when such person has been immediately prior to such time on such property and has been pursued therefrom by such dog
When person deemed lawfully on property of owner ofdog
For the purpose of this chapter a person shall be considered to be lawfully upon the private property of the owner of such dog when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws of the United States or the postal laws and regulations of the United States, when reading meters, when delivering milk, when making repairs to any public utility or service upon said premises or when on such property upon the invitation, either expressed or implied, of the owner or lessee of such property.
Mitigation of damages
The owner of such dog shall, however, be entitled to plead and prove in mitigation of damages that he had no knowledge of any circumstances indicating such dog to be or to have been vicious or dangerous or mischievous, and, if he does so, he shall be liable only to the extent of the actual expenses incurred by the person so bitten or injured as a result of the bite or injury.
Source: Ala. Code § 3-6-1 (West)
Vicious and Dangerous Dogs:
§ 3-1-3. Liability of owner, etc., permitting vicious or dangerous animal to be at liberty, etc., for injuries caused by same.
When any person owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and, as a result of his careless management of the same or his allowing the same to go at liberty, and another person, without fault on his part, is injured thereby, such owner or keeper shall be liable in damages for such injury.
Rabid Dogs:
§ 3-1-2. Liability of owner, etc., for injuries caused by rabid dog.
The owner or person in charge of any dog, who knows that such dog has been bitten by a rabid dog or has knowledge of such facts that if followed up would disclose the facts that such dog has been bitten by or exposed to a rabid dog, if such dog becomes a rabid dog and bites any person, stock, hogs or cattle shall be liable to twice the damages sustained by the person injured, including appropriate medical treatment, such damages to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
No updates to Bite Law
No dog shall be permitted except on leash within any wildlife
management area except per state rule; the owner of any dog at large within any wildlife management area shall be guilty of a misdemeanor Source: Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-305
No Updates to Leash Law
Alaska Update: add under Liability Statute
Dogs deemed vicious
Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious. Any person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large.
Source: Alaska Stat. Ann. § 03.55.020 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute) Arizona Liability for dog bites
A. The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness.
B. Nothing in this section or in § 11-1020 shall permit the bringing of an action for damages against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:
o (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's
involvement in criminal activity.
o (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
o (3) In the execution of a warrant.
o (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person. C. Subsection B of this section shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.
D. Subsection B of this section shall apply only where a
governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subsection B of this section.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1025 (West)
Arizona Leash Law:
No person in charge of any dog shall permit such dog in a public park or upon any public school property unless the dog is physically restrained by a leash, enclosed in a car, cage or similar enclosure or being exhibited or trained at a recognized kennel club event, public school or park sponsored event.
Source: A.R.S. § 11-1012
No updates to Leash Law
Arkansas Unlawful activities regarding animal bites
(a) It is unlawful for any person bitten, the family, treating
physician, or veterinarian that has knowledge of a person bitten by a dog or cat or other animal to refuse to notify the health
authorities promptly.
(b) It is unlawful for the owner of the dog or cat or other animal to sell, give away, transfer, transport to another area, or otherwise dispose of the dog or cat or other animal that is known to have bitten a person until it is released by the health authorities.
(c)(1) It is unlawful for the owner of the dog or cat or other animal to refuse or fail to comply with the written or printed instructions of the health authorities in any particular case.
by health authorities or their authorized agent.
(B) If instructions cannot be delivered in person, they shall be mailed by regular mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the owner of the dog or cat or other animal.
(C) The affidavit or testimony of the health
authorities or their authorized agent, who delivered or mailed such instructions, shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt of the instructions by the owner of the dog or cat or other animal.
Source: Ark. Code Ann. § 20-19-306 (West)
Updates to Law:
Based on the statute above, I would update our website under “Dangerous Dog Statute” to say: Although Arkansas does not have a dangerous dog statute, a dog owner whose dog bites another person must notify health authorities promptly.
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
California
Dog bites; liability of owner; military or police work excluded; limitations
(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty
imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by 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.
(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:
o (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity.
o (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
o (3) In the execution of a warrant.
o (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor
suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.
(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b).
Source: Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 3342 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Colorado
Civil actions against dog owners
(2) A person or a personal representative of a person who suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property shall be entitled to bring a civil action to recover economic damages against the dog owner regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog or the dog owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities.
(3) In any case described in subsection (2) of this section in which it is alleged and proved that the dog owner had knowledge or notice of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities, the court, upon a motion made by the victim or the personal representative of the victim, may enter an order that the dog be euthanized by a licensed veterinarian or licensed shelter at the expense of the dog owner.
(4) For purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be lawfully on public or private property if he or she is in the
performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by local, state, or federal laws or regulations or if he or she is on property upon express or implied invitation of the owner of the property or is on his or her own property.
(5) A dog owner shall not be liable to a person who suffers bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death from being bitten by the dog:
property;
o (b) While the person is on property of the dog owner and the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating “no trespassing” or “beware of dog”;
o (c) While the dog is being used by a peace officer or military personnel in the performance of peace officer or military personnel duties;
o (d) As a result of the person knowingly provoking the dog;
o (e) If the person is a veterinary health care worker, dog groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog handler, trainer, or dog show judge acting in the
performance of his or her respective duties; or
o (f) While the dog is working as a hunting dog, herding dog, farm or ranch dog, or predator control dog on the property of or under the control of the dog's owner.
No Updates to Bite/Dangerous Dog Laws
Source: Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-124 (West)
Colorado Leash Law:
It is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal found running at large and dispose of such animal in accordance with local program policy.
Source: C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610
No updates to Leash Laws
Connecticut
Damage to person or property
If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or, if the owner or keeper is a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an action under this section is brought, was under seven years of age
at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the defendant in such action.
Source: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 22-357 (West)
No updates to Bite Law
It is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal found running at large and dispose of such animal in accordance with local program policy.
Source: C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610
No Updates to Leash Law
Delaware
Liability of dog owner for damages
The owner of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death or loss to person or property that is caused by such dog, unless the injury, death or loss was caused to the body or property of a person who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a
trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, or was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against any person, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog.
No Updates to Bite Law
Dogs running at large
No dog shall be permitted to run at large at any time, unless the dog is accompanied by the owner or custodian and under the owner's or custodian's reasonable control and is licensed in
accordance with county ordinances, except that a person who is an occupant of a farm or property containing 20 acres or more on which there are no more than 3 resident dwelling units may permit a dog to run at large between October 1 and the last day of
February, next following. Any owner or custodian who violates this subsection shall be fined not less than $25 or more than $50.
