California Personal Injury Blog - Property Owner's Liability (Slip & Fall)

Dog Attacks Unsuspecting Deputy

Rick Patterson — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:15:33 GMT

When Deputy David Pike made a house call in response to a complaint pertaining to a damaged mailbox, he got more than he bargained for. The homeowner's German shepherd attacked him biting him in the thigh.

In order to fend off the attack, Deputy Pike used a chemical spray on the dog. Fortunately, the dog did not break the deputy's skin. Due to the attack, the owner of the dog was issued a notice pertaining to the new classification of the German shepherd as a potentially dangerous dog. More than fair, I would say.

The dog's owner was informed that if the German Shephard were to bite another person, it could be then classified as a dangerous dog. Did he say "could be"!!! Amazingly, the dog's owner, became enraged when given the form and information that if the dog does bite again, it would be required to be kept in an enclosure, be microchiped and public postings would be also required.

How dare he be outraged. It is the public that should be outraged. As it is, this dog is free to attack another unsuspecting victim who will be justifiably outraged when he/she finds out this is not the first time this dog has attacked. Clearly, this man is not willing to take the proper precautions to protect others from his pet, so we must do that for him.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Patterson

Kurita's Bill Would Toughen Pet Laws

Susy Owen — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:08:33 GMT

Tennessee's State Senator Rosalind Kurita of Clarksville is looking for accountability. And now she will introduce a bill that will provide that accountability for pet owners.

The bill is known as "permissive legislation." In the event of a dog attack the case would go to General Sessions Court. Currently a dog attack case would go before a Circuit Court judge, which would assure a fine of $50 at most. If the bill passes such a case would be sent to General Sessions, where a judge could have the dog destroyed or impose a higher fine.

"I do believe in accountability," Kurita said Wednesday. "We can not have dogs hurting people in Montgomery County." At David Selby, animal control director for Montgomery County put it "All we can do is cite the person for a dog at-large," Selby said of current laws. "It's a joke." He backs the senator on this one. Selby added "There are certain breeds ... you're looking at 2,000 pounds of bite pressure." I think we should all be taking this type of threat seriously. Keeping the public safe is paramount, and enforcing strict vigorous laws is the only way to make some pet owners take responsibility.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Susy Owen

Dog Bites on the Rise in Raleigh

Rick Patterson — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:08:38 GMT

Dog bites are a concern in many cities. Many people feel the current laws do little to protect the public at large. Raleigh, North Carolina is no exception. Raleigh residents in particular have reason for concern, as there has been a steady increase in reported dog bites in their town.

In 2007, there were 367 bites reported, which was a 56 percent increase over 2000, and the numbers are still rising. Raleigh has experienced quite a lot of growth and with that, increases of all kinds are to be expected. Although, there is no denying the numbers are disconcerting.

Part of the problem is, with as many dog bites as there are in the area, few dogs in Raleigh are declared dangerous. Despite the increase in attacks, just two or three dogs each year are declared dangerous by Raleigh's animal control officers. In fact, the law does not hold a dog owner responsible for a first attack. It really makes little sense that the victim be attacked and then foot the bills that arise out of that attack. Sure, the attack may have been unforeseen, but that is hardly a good reason to bill the victim as opposed to the owner. Many laws are simply antiquated when it comes to dogs, and medical cost, way back when, were simply not what they are today. Lawmakers really do need to consider holding dog owners financially liable for harm to victims of their pets whether it be the first offense or not. It is simply the right thing to do.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Patterson

Fort Worth Bans the Chaining of Dogs

Susy Owen — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:58:53 GMT

In 2007, Texas House Bill 1411 was passed making it a misdemeanor to chain a dog overnight, in extreme weather, or for more than three consecutive hours. That is a start. Now, the City Council of Fort Worth has improved on that law and has banned chaining dogs in front and back yards, period.

The cost to anyone violating this law is a $500 fine for the first offense. If that does not get the message through, the law breaker will face a possible stay in jail, which may actually be better conditions that they left their pet in. The fines can go from $500 up to as much as $2,000.

Education is key. Some people just don't get the cruelty aspect of their behavior towards pets and some, the worst kind, just don't care. As Ghandi pointed out "you judge the morality of a country by the way they treat their animals." For people who have pets but lack a conscious, and/or awareness, the law is there to guide them to do the right thing. In a 20-year study done by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, it documented that tethering a dog brings out and increases aggressive behavior in animals. Dogs that are chained are almost three times more likely to bite people, according to this study. Cruelty aside, those facts should be reason enough not to chain a dog.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Susy Owen

Pit Bull Fights off Master's Would-be Attacker

Rick Patterson — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:28:37 GMT

One would think that it would be a pretty safe bet that a would-be attacker would shy away from attacking a dog owner when she is in the company of her pit bull. One would think.

Last Thursday in Troutdale, Oregon, a man attacked a 19-year-old woman when her pit bull came to her rescue. The pit bull bit the attacker who swiftly left the scene and the woman. The man responsible for the attack is said to be between 25 to 30 years old, 5-foot-10 and 170 pounds. Now there's a case of biting off more than you can possibly chew.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Patterson

Dr. Files Suit Against County Due to Lack of Protection

Susy Owen — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:07:23 GMT

The law protects dog owners' rights as much as it tries to ensure public safety. Accordingly, the county Animal Services Department will not remove your dog just because someone merely thinks the dog is vicious. Dr. Nancy Matthews, a 47-year-old Valley Center equine veterinarian, says she suffered as a result.

In November 2006, Dr. Matthews was with her two sons, 8 and 11-years old when she was mauled by two dogs. These particular dog, boxers, had previously bitten two other people and were on the loose near her house. Due to that fact, she is suing Animal Services, alleging that the department failed to investigate previous bites by the dogs and take steps to protect the public. Imagine your children watching their mother being attacked by two dogs. These boxers were tearing at their mother's scalp, arms, legs and back, which necessitated blood transfusions amoung other forms of treatment. The attack left a multitude of scars on the doctor in addition to indentations on her body where tissue was torn away from her body during the dog attack.

According to the county Animal Services, no mandatory duty was breached by them. As far as they are concerned, the culprit is the owner of the dogs. They claim they have to jump through hoops in trying to restrain dangerous dogs (see original article for full details). According to the county, the best action is self-defense. The best of luck to all of us with that advise.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Susy Owen

Ving Rhames' Dogs Cleared in Death Case

Rick Patterson — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:14:55 GMT

You may recall five months ago when actor Ving Rhames left a good friend and caretaker Jacob Adams at his home while he was on a movie shoot. Rhames was subsequently informed that Adams was found dead the lawn of Rhames' Brentwood home and the 4 dogs on the property had been quarantined pending an investigation under suspicion of a dog attack causing the death.

That investigation has wrapped up, and the conclusion by The Los Angeles County Coroner's office is that although there were dog bites on the victims body, those bites were not fatal. Because police suspected Rhames' dogs of having mauled his caretaker, they quarantined Rhames' three bull mastiffs and one English bulldog. It "seemed" to be an obvious conclusion. However, Coroner Spokesman Ed Winter stated that the cause of death to Mr. Adam was actually due a pre-existing condition called intravascular sickling. The dogs have since been released into Rhames' custody. It is believed that Rhames will relocate the dogs to an estate in Texas.

Additional information pertaining to property owner's liability

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Patterson

Alaska Leads Nation in Dog Bite Injuries

Rick Patterson — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:12:54 GMT

Alaska Leads Nation in dog bite Injuries. According to the state's dog bite fatality database and the Alaska Trauma Registry, between the years 1991 through 2002, Alaska had the most dog bite injuries, including deaths, in the nation.

There has been a yearly rate of 4.6 injuries per 100,000 people in Alaska. State officials are interested in educating the public on avoiding dog injuries. Many times a dog reacts to a person's approach. The state will attempt to educate the public through more school field trips to animal shelters and public service announcements.

Please visit the this site for invaluable information on how to approach a dog

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Patterson

Plan to Tighten Dangerous Dog Law Abroad

Rick Patterson — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:07:05 GMT

The safety of people as it pertains to dog bites has long been a concern here in the U.S. and abroad. Recently, in Scotland, a new law to control dogs deemed to be dangerous has been in the Scottish Parliament.

Alex Neil, a member of the Scottish Labor Party (SLP) wants courts to impose "dog orders" for dangerous pets. The proposed "dog orders" would ensure dogs were micro-chipped and kept under strict conditions.
The "dog orders" would not be breed specific. Neil believes that the emphises should shift from "breed to deed." Many people are against the deed v. breed proposal given the propensity of some breeds for violence.

Currently, there is a Dangerous Dogs Act in place. However, Neil is not impressed with the loopholes in that particular Act. For example, just last month, a Rottweiler killed a baby boy in West Yorkshire. Yet, Rottweilers are not included in the Dangerous Dog Act. Of further concern is the fact that dog bites in Scotland have doubled in the past ten years. Neil is hopeful that switching the focus from breed to deed will take care of the current loopholes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rick Patterson

Tatiana Tiger Not Taunted?

Larry Knapp — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:22:09 GMT

O.K. the experts say that yelling and waving hands at a tiger likely wouldn't be enough to provoke it to attack. Even throwing rocks wouldn't necessarily cause the cat to leave its home and track down a taunter. You would have to hit it in the face or poke it repeatedly. Urinating

would provoke it, too.

While there is no evidence that the boys involved in the tiger attack hit the cat in the face or poked it or even urinated it, it is possible that a jury would assign them a portion of fault for waving and yelling. That's called comparative fault under California Law and even thought the owner of the Tiger is strictly liable for the injuries it inflicted this comparative fault element could be significant. The reason it is significant is because the jury in a civil case is first asked to determine how much the damages are to the plaintiff. So, for example in this case let's say the damages are $1,000,000.00. In a separate question the jury is asked what portion of fault, if any, does the plaintiff have for the attack. If the jury is convinced that the plaintiff brought the attack on themselves they could assign 99% comparative fault. The judge would then reduce the $1,000,000.00 by 99% leaving $10,000.00. That's a huge reduction.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Premises Liability.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp