Do you need a dog bite attorney to handle a pit bull attack in Washington State? Seattle attorney Chris Davis is the author of 'When The Dog Bites' a guidebook to the dog bite laws in Washington State.
An investigation by the authorities can produce information and witness statements that may be critical in helping you establish liability against the animal’s owner.
The Washington Supreme Court has held that a landlord cannot be held liable for the harm caused by a tenant’s dog, even if the landlord had knowledge of the dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities.
The term negligence means that a person has failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances, giving rise to injuries or damages.
Under Washington common law, it is not necessary for a dog to have previously bitten someone for its owner to be presumed to have knowledge that it was likely to do so.
Anyone who watches or keeps a dog, despite not being the dog’s true owner, can still be liable for injuries inflicted by the dog if you can show that person had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous tendencies.
There are more than 1 million dog bites reported each year. And there are estimates that an equal number of dog bites (1 million) go unreported every year.
Under Washington common law, a person who keeps or harbors a dog, and who knows or should reasonably know the dog has vicious or dangerous propensities likely to cause the injuries complained of, is strictly liable for the injuries caused by the dog regardless of negligence committed by either the keeper of the dog or the injured person.
In Washington a dog owner can also be held liable for damages under the common law. In this chapter I explain what “common law” means and how a dog owner can still be obligated to pay damages even if the terms of the “Dog Bite Statute” cannot be met.
The insurance company for the dog owner initially denied the claim by arguing that the girl had provoked the dog. Since provocation of the dog is a complete defense under the dog bite statute, the insurer refused to pay any compensation.
The insurance company for the dog owner initially denied the claim by arguing that the girl had provoked the dog. Since provocation of the dog is a complete defense under the dog bite statute, the insurer refused to pay any compensation.
The insurance company for the dog owner denied the claim. It argued that the boy was not on the dog owner’s property with his consent. The boy, argued the insurance carrier, was a trespasser and therefore no liability could attach under the dog bite statute.
The term “express consent” usually occurs when the dog owner specifically invites you onto his property. For example, if you invite me to your house for dinner and while I am there your dog bites me, then I may pursue a claim against you under the dog bite statute. By inviting me into your home, you have expressly consented to my presence on your private property.
I represented a man who found a dog in the pet section of the classified ads of the local newspaper. This man was looking for a specific breed. He wanted a dog for his two young children, but didn’t want a puppy because of the time and effort it would take to train the animal.