Attorney Blog

Dog Bite Attorneys in Washington State

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)25718 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

Washington State dog bite attorney Chris Davis is a dog owner. However, as Washington lawyer, he has helped dozens of dog bite and dog attack victims. He thoroughly understands the issues and the laws about dogs. In fact, he is the author of When The Dog Bites: The Essential Guide To Dog Bite Law in Washington State.

Your right to recover for a dog bite in Washington may be dependent upon either the dog’s history and/or the leash laws applicable in the county or city where the dog attack occurred.

If you have suffered cosmetic scarring, physical injury or psychological trauma as the result of a dog bite or attack, contact Davis Law Group in Seattle, Washington today to schedule a free initial consultation. Call 206-727-4000.

Children Bitten By Dogs - Part One - Seattle Dog Bite Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)22087 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Part #1 - Determining the Value of a Dog Bite Case - Washington State Dog Bite Lawyer In Seattle

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21960 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

There is no magic formula or process by which someone can predict with certainty the amount of money that a dog bite case may be worth. About 25 to 30 years ago there was some limited consensus among lawyers and insurance adjustors that a general personal injury claim may be worth three times the amount of medical expenses plus lost wages. But that so-called rule was really just a guideline for predicting how a jury might determine the value of the case. Today no such guideline or consensus exists. There are so many different factors that may influence the value of a claim that it is virtually impossible to create some type of formula that can reliably predict the value of any given case.

There are some differences with dog bite cases compared to your typical personal injury claim, like car accidents and other general negligence claims. First, because dog bites often involve the laceration, puncturing and tearing of tissue, the existence of a lasting scar or disfigurement is usually present. Although each case is different and highly dependent on the individual facts involved, I can make some general observations about these types of cases when it comes to value. Generally speaking, bites that occur to the face will command a higher settlement value than an injury inflicted on another part of the body. Obviously, a prominent scar that affects a person’s appearance will have more impact and value then if the scar is located in a place that is not easily detectable by the public.

Usually, dog bite cases involving permanent scarring or disfigurement to a female victim will command a higher settlement value then if the victim is a male. This is because most people agree that women place much more emphasis and value on their physical appearance as compared to men. But if the male victim can show that his appearance has been significantly damaged or impacted, the claim may also have high value. An example would be if the male victim were a model or other professional who relies heavily on his appearance for his livelihood.

When it comes to evaluating dog bite cases, photographs of the wound are extremely important. The photographs can help demonstrate the severity of the injury and subsequent scarring much better than the cold medical record or chart that merely contains a description from the physician. Thus, a case that involves low medical bills but has photographs showing severe and extensive wounds and/or scarring can command a very high value.

Many dog bite cases involve children. But injury cases involving children can be even more difficult when it comes to determining a value. This has to do with the child being young and physically immature. Estimates about the impact of an injury on future employment, appearance and relationships (e.g. marriage) can be highly speculative because the child has not yet attained the age when the results of the injury may be fully manifested. Sometimes the dog bite wound can take years to resolve. Sometimes scarring that appears severe and extensive in childhood can look remarkably better when that child becomes an adult. For these reasons, trying to determine the future impact of a child’s dog bite injury may be highly speculative and therefore more difficult to calculate when compared to those dog bite cases involving adults.

People should also understand that there is a big difference between the settlement value of a case and the actual value a jury may determine. Settlement value is always less than actual value. This is because the settlement value takes into account the enormous expense and risk of going to trial. The settlement value is always a subjective judgment made by the parties. The settlement offer has to be high enough to persuade the dog bite victim to accept the offer to avoid the increased risk and expense of going forward with litigation and a trial.

Washington State Statute of Limitations for Dog Bite Cases Involving Children - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21959 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

For adults, the statute of limitations in dog bite cases in Washington is three (3) years from the date of injury. This means the claim must be settled or filed in court within three years. But for children, this three-year period does not begin to run until a minor child turns 18. Thus, a child will usually have until his or her 21st birthday to settle the claim or file a lawsuit in court. Usually however, a young child’s claim should be resolved well before that child turns 21.

Dog Bite Cases: Negligence or Provocation by the Child - Washington State Animal Attack Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21957 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Washington law states that a child can be held negligent and therefore wholly or partially responsible for that child’s injuries and damages. Thus, the dog owner may be permitted to argue that the child was comparatively negligent for causing the injury. But in Washington there are certain limitations when it comes to accidents and injuries involving negligent children. First, the law in Washington is that children under the age of 6 years cannot be held negligent as a matter of law. The Washington State Supreme Court has decided that a child under age 6 does not have the mental capacity to be negligent. This means that any time a child under age 6 has been injured by a dog, the dog owner’s is not permitted to argue that the child was at fault.

Although the issue has not been considered by Washington courts, one could also convincingly argue that a child under 6 does not have the mental capacity to intentionally “provoke” a dog. Thus, the provocation defense available to the dog owner under the “Dog Bite Statute” may not be available in the case where the victim was a child under the age of 6.

Children age 6 and older can be held negligent, but only for failing to exercise the ordinary care that a “reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience” would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Thus, a dog owner may be able to argue that an older child was wholly or partially responsible for the child’s injuries, or that the child provoked the dog and recovery should therefore be denied under the “Dog Bite Statute.” Whether such an argument against the child is successful will depend heavily upon the particular facts of the case.

Parental Immunity in Dog Bite Cases - Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21956 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

One question that arises is whether a child’s parent can be held responsible for injuries inflicted upon the child by the family dog. The answer is often no. Washington State recognizes a law called the Parental Immunity Doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligent parent is immune from liability for injuries caused to the child unless the parent was acting outside his or her parental capacity, or if the child’s injuries were caused by a parent’s willful and wanton misconduct. In the case of a family dog injuring a child, the parents will likely be immune from liability under this doctrine.

The Legal Process for Dog Bite Cases Involving Children

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21955 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

The legal process for child injury claims differs from the legal process for cases brought by adults. For starters, a child under the age of 18 is considered a minor. In Washington, a minor cannot file a lawsuit on his or her own. This can only be done by a guardian appointed by the court. A guardian is someone who the court believes will adequately protect the child’s interests and do what is best for the child in the legal case that is being filed on the child’s behalf.

If the child’s dog bite case cannot be settled with the dog owner’s insurance company, the next step is to file a lawsuit. To start a lawsuit, a petition must be filed, asking the court to appoint a suitable guardian who will bring the lawsuit on the child’s behalf. Oftentimes the guardian appointed by the court will be the child’s parent or parents. However, there may be a problem with using the child’s parents to act as guardians. If there is a potential argument that the parent was somehow responsible for causing the child’s injury, then there may be a conflict of interest between the interests of the child and those of the parent. In that situation a parent may be prohibited from acting as the child’s guardian for purposes of bringing a lawsuit.
Once the court grants the petition, an order is entered stating that the guardian is authorized to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the child. In addition to filing the petition, there are additional documents called pleadings that must be filed in court along with a fee paid to the clerk. These pleadings are called the summons and complaint. The case then proceeds in much the same way that one would for an adult. Please refer to the next chapter for a detailed discussion of the legal process of a dog bite case.

The Settlement Process for Dog Bite Cases Involving Children - Part One - Washington State Dog Bite Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21954 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

In Washington, there are special conditions that must be met for the settlement of a child injury claim. In every settlement of a minor’s claim, whether filed in court or not, the Superior Court shall determine the adequacy of the proposed settlement and decide whether to reject or approve it. To assist the court in determining whether a minor child settlement is reasonable, the court will also appoint a Settlement Guardian ad Litem (SGAL). Usually, the SGAL is an experienced attorney, but not always. The SGAL has the job of investigating the facts of the case, reviewing records and pleadings, interviewing the parents or legal guardians, and then determining whether the amount of the settlement is reasonable.

To start the settlement process for a child, a petition must be filed in court, formally asking the judge or commissioner to appoint the person who will act as the SGAL. That person must be approved by the court. Essentially the role of the SGAL is to investigate the relevant facts concerning the child's case and the proposed settlement. The SGAL analyzes the course(s) of action available to the child in the underlying action. The SGAL identifies the course(s) of action that the SGAL thinks will best serve the child’s interests, and makes a report and recommendation to the court concerning those interests. The role of other parties involved, who often include the child’s attorney and parents or guardian, is to assist the SGAL by providing information, answering questions, and highlighting any concerns.

The SGAL must conduct an investigation and compile a report containing his or her recommendation on whether the settlement should be approved or rejected. The SGAL’s investigation usually includes reviewing all of the medical records, expert reports, pleadings, and other documentation to support the claim. The SGAL usually will want to talk to the child and/or the child’s parents or guardian about the effect of the child’s injuries and the settlement proposal. The SGAL will also want to talk to the child’s attorney to understand all of the legal issues involved and the attorney’s rationale for recommending that the settlement offer be approved.

The Settlement Process for Dog Bite Cases Involving Children - Part Two - Washington State Dog Bite Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21953 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

One of the issues for the SGAL to investigate and report on to the court is what to do about the child’s net settlement proceeds (i.e., the amount of money left over after fees, costs, and liens have been paid). Basically, there are three options: (1) establishing a blocked bank account for the minor, (2) purchasing an annuity that will make future payments to the minor after he or she turns 18, or (3) creating a managed trust account for the benefit of the minor child. Sometimes a combination of the three options is utilized, depending on the amount of the settlement and the age of the child.

Once the SGAL has concluded the investigation and issued a report, the child’s attorney must draft and file a petition with the court asking the judge or court commissioner to approve the settlement. A hearing will be set. The child’s attorney, the parents, and the SGAL will usually have to attend the hearing. Sometimes it is a good idea for the child to appear, depending on age and the issues involved. The hearing allows the court to ask any questions about the SGAL’s investigation and report. Sometimes the court will ask the parents questions to learn more about the child’s injuries or prognosis. If the court approves of the settlement, an order will be entered setting forth the basis for approval and ruling how the settlement proceeds will be disbursed and held and/or invested on behalf of the child.

It is important to understand that the settlement approval process concerning a minor child injury claim can take weeks or even several months, depending on the complexity of the case and the amount of the settlement proceeds involved. Sometimes the settlement process can be initiated early in the claim, enabling the SGAL to participate in settlement discussions with the other party’s insurance carrier. Sometimes this may not be practical if there are other demands involved with the claim, like litigation or an impending trial date. Every case is different, and the parents should expect to speak to the attorney about what to expect in their child’s claim.

Statistics and Basic Facts About Children and Dog Bites - Washington State Dog Bite Law

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21950 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Of the one million dog bites that are reported each year, about 60% involve an injury to a child. Approximately 70% of dog bite wounds are inflicted on the child’s face. Children ages 5 to 9 have the highest dog bite-related injuries. This is true in my own law practice. I see a disproportionately higher percentage of dog bite cases involving children. In my experience, the odds that a dog bite case involves a child are nearly 4 to 1. That means for every five dog bite cases I see, about four of them (or 80%) will involve a young child.

Contrary to popular myth, there is no such thing as a child-friendly dog breed. Although some breeds may be more suitable for children, a dog’s propensity to bite is dependent on many different factors, including without limitation, the dog’s inherited traits, environment, training, and socialization. Studies have shown that the most positive influence on a dog’s comfort around children is the opportunity to positively interact with children when the dog is a young puppy.

There are some guidelines that, if followed, can reduce the chance that a dog will bite a young child. The critical age for socializing a dog is between the ages of three and fourteen weeks. A dog in this age range who is introduced to young children has a much lower rate of biting kids. Neutering male dogs also decreases the chance of aggressive behavior. If you plan to have young children and a dog, it is best to bring in the dog while it is young and introduce it to the children when they are toddler age.

Dogs also need to be introduced to children of all ages. For instance, a young toddler will act differently around the dog than a 10-year-old child. Children should also be involved with training the dog. This allows the dog to experience the child as an authoritative figure and thereby decrease the chances of a bite. Children should also be involved in other caretaking activities, like feeding, grooming and bathing the dog. All of these activities will increase the dog’s comfort level around the child and dramatically reduce the likelihood of a bite incident.

Parents should also never leave young children alone with a dog, particularly if the dog has limited experience with that child. You can also teach children to recognize fearful or aggressive behavior in dogs so the child can take steps to avoid or minimize the risk of a bite. And finally, parents should be good examples of how to treat the dog. Children often emulate their parents’ behavior and this also applies to each parent’s own interaction with the dog.

#9 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - King County Washington Dog Bite Lawyer in Seattle

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21946 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

9. Failing to hire a lawyer if the injuries appear to be serious, disfiguring or permanent. If your injuries are serious or permanent, then it is usually in your best interest to hire a lawyer to help you resolve the claim. Please remember that insurance companies go to great lengths to train their adjustors on how to dig up information to use against you, and then teach them how to use this information to negotiate and minimize your claim. Adjustors usually handle thousands of claims every year so they are expert negotiators and evaluators of injury claims. Many times the insurance company will assign a dog bite case to the person who has the most knowledge and experience with these types of claims. So that adjustor will be well-versed on the law and understand the defenses and arguments available in a dog bite case. In most cases involving severe injury or scarring, the experienced dog bite lawyer will be able to obtain much more compensation then the unrepresented victim can recover on his or her own (and this is even true after the attorney subtracts his fee!). I handle dog bite cases on contingency so there is no out-of-pocket cost to see me, and I can usually tell you whether the case is worth pursuing with a lawyer or if you can go it alone (please refer to the last chapter of the book if you wish to speak to me about your dog bite case).

Also, by attempting to settle your case on your own you take the risk that you might do or say something that might permanently damage the case in some way. Even if you hire a lawyer later on, that lawyer is pretty much stuck with whatever has happened in the case. If you make statements that contradict the medical records, or say something to the adjustor that reveals what amount you are willing to accept as a settlement, or seek out inappropriate treatment, this can make it virtually impossible for the lawyer to resolve the case for maximum value. Oftentimes the best thing a dog bite victim can do is to immediately hire counsel to act on his or her behalf to ensure that no mistakes are made and that everything is handled professionally so the chances of recovering a satisfactory settlement is maximized.

#8 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - King County Washington Dog Bite Lawyer in Seattle

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21945 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

8. Not being absolutely honest with your doctors and the authorities. The credibility of the dog bite victim is extremely important. Oftentimes an incident or claim can only be proven based on what the victim says and what the dog owner says. Thus, if you give statements to your doctors or the authorities that turn out to be false, this will likely cause severe damage to your case—if not completely destroy it. Although it sounds like a cliché, honesty is absolutely the best policy. Be above reproach when it comes to describing what happened in the incident and how the injuries have affected you. Even minor exaggerations or incomplete versions of the incident to the doctor can cause major problems in the claim. Also, be aware that statements you make to others can be used against you. If you make a false statement to someone like a witness or co-worker or friend, that person can be used as a witness against you. So being honest to everyone is the best policy.

#7 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Dog Bite Statutes in King County Washington - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21943 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

7. Settling your claim too soon, or appearing too eager to settle your claim soon. If the injuries are severe, it may take many months or years before your injuries heal or before they reach maximum improvement. The insurance company will likely want to pressure you into making a quick settlement. Don’t! The carrier knows that quick settlements mean much lower pay-outs. And if you have experienced any disfigurement or scarring, it may take a long time before the doctors know whether it is permanent or whether future revision surgery may be necessary. The existence of permanent scars or disfigurement can dramatically increase the value of your claim, so you are always wise to wait to resolve your claim.

Also, if you appear too eager to settle the claim, this can negatively impact the case. Insurance adjustors are trained to look for signs that may weaken your negotiating position. If you are in debt or need money fast, the insurance company will use this fact to its advantage by making much lower settlement offers then might otherwise be warranted. In one case of mine, the client had tried to negotiate a settlement on his own. But during negotiations he also revealed that he had substantial debt and needed the money fast. When I got into the case, the insurance adjustor used this information against me to keep the settlement unreasonably low. The client ultimately had to accept this unreasonably low offer because the insurance adjustor knew that filing a lawsuit would delay resolution of the claim for at least another 18 months. The insurance adjustor knows that a person who really needs the money fast is in a much weaker position to ask for a higher settlement. Therefore, don’t appear too eager to settle. Take your time. In fact, be willing to negotiate the claim over a period of days or even weeks. Patience is usually met with a much higher settlement figure.

#6 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21942 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

6. Failing to document everything. You should write a statement about the incident while everything is fresh in your mind. Your claim may take many months, or even years, to resolve. Writing things down will help you to record and recall important facts that may be useful later on. You should keep a file to store documents, photographs, and records related to the claim, like receipts, medical records, names and phone numbers of witnesses, correspondence from the insurance company, the address and phone number of the dog owner, information about the dog, investigative reports from the authorities, etc. If you decide to hire a lawyer, your file of records and documents can provide enormous assistance to the attorney and his or her staff in representing your interests. I remember one case where the person had previously written down the dog owner’s name, address and telephone number, but then lost this piece of paper by the time he came to see me nearly three years later. By that time it was virtually impossible for me to track down the identity and location of the dog owner so I had to decline the case (which I believed had a settlement value of at least $50,000 to $75,000).

#5 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21941 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

5. Signing insurance company forms and medical authorizations. For the same reasons you should not give a recorded statement to the insurance company, you should not sign any forms or medical authorizations that it requests. Again, these forms are used to protect the carrier’s interest. The insurance company will be looking for any information in your past medical history to build its case against you. In one case of mine, the client had executed medical authorizations allowing the company to dig far back into her medical history. These records revealed unflattering information about my client to the extent that the information damaged her reputation and made it difficult for me to settle the case for a much higher amount. Please don’t help the insurance company by signing documents it asks you to sign.

#4 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Washington State Dog Bite Lawyer

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21940 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

4. Giving a recorded statement to the insurance company. If the dog owner has insurance, the carrier will almost always ask you for a recorded statement. Don’t do it! The statement will be used by the company to look for any “holes” in your story. There are always minor discrepancies, and sometimes errors, when a person is asked to recount a traumatic incident. The carrier knows this and will use these to either reject your claim entirely or to minimize the amount of compensation it has to pay out. The only reason to give a statement is to help the insurance company. Sometimes it may be beneficial to give a statement to the company, but you should always consult with an attorney first to determine if that situation applies to your case.

#3 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Pit Bull Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21939 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

3. Failing to take multiple photographs of your injuries and wounds. This is extremely important. Often times the value of a dog bite injury is heavily dependent on the appearance of the initial injury, along with the appearance of subsequent disfigurement and scarring that develops over time. You should take multiple photographs over the period of time that it takes the injury or wound to heal. Insurance companies will often put a great deal of weight on photographs, especially if the injury is significant and any subsequent scar or disfigurement is severe. We have all heard the adage, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” This is no less true with photographs depicting severe dog bite injuries, disfiguring wounds, or prominent scars.

#2 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Seattle Dog Bite Lawyer

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21938 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

2. Failing to notify the proper authorities. If you have been bitten, the proper authorities should be immediately notified. This may include the police or the local animal control agency. 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. Sometimes the most important question to answer is, “Who owns the dog?” If you are not familiar with the dog, or if the dog runs away after the attack, then an investigation by the proper authorities may become even more important to your subsequent legal claim.

#1 - Nine Mistakes Dog Bite Victims Should Avoid - Washington State Dog Bite Attorney in Seattle

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21937 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

1. Failing to seek medical treatment promptly. If the injury is serious enough to warrant medical attention, then you need to promptly consult with a doctor, or go to your local emergency room. Insurance companies may refuse to believe that the injury is serious unless prompt medical attention has been received. Also, a visit to the doctor will result in the creation of a chart note that becomes a permanent record in the case. The magnitude of the injury, as well as your symptoms, will be recorded by a professional and this information can be used later to prove how bad the injury is.

Dog Bite Statute of Limitations in Washington State - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21936 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

The law imposes strict time requirements on when a claim must be settled or filed in court. In Washington, a dog bite victim generally has three years from the date of injury to settle or file his claim. For victims who are children, this three-year period does not begin to commence until the child turns 18. This means that a child has until his or her 21^st birthday to settle or file a claim. However, in most dog bite cases involving young children, the claim should usually be settled or resolved well before the child’s 21^st birthday.

Landlord Liability for Dog Bite - Washington State Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21935 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Occasionally I come across a case where the dog attack occurred on property that was being leased to or rented by the dog owner. The question is therefore, can the landlord be held responsible for the dog bite injury under the common law even though the landlord doesn’t own or harbor the dog? The answer is usually no. 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. Now, if the facts show that the landlord also participated in caring for the dog, this may be an exception. However, there is no current Washington court case that has expressly addressed this issue.

Assumption of Risk: Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21934 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

The defense of assumption of risk states that a person cannot recover damages for an incident if that person knowingly assumes a risk that gave rise to the injury. There are strong arguments to suggest that a dog owner cannot allege the defense of assumption of risk. For starters, the “Dog Bite Statute” does not appear to permit this defense. The only defense under the statute is provocation of the dog. Under common law, the dog owner is strictly liable if it can be shown that the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Thus, a finding of strict liability would appear to eliminate any potential argument that the victim assumed a known risk associated with the animal. Nonetheless, a resolution of these issues will likely depend heavily on the particular facts involved. There may be some fact pattern where a court might allow the dog owner to argue that the victim assumed a known risk associated with the dog which gave rise to the injury.

Contributory Negligence & Dog Bite Law in Washington State - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21921 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

The concept of contributory negligence and assumption of risk may also apply in cases involving dog bite injuries. The phrase “contributory negligence” refers to the negligent conduct of the person who was bitten by the dog. If that person failed to exercise care, and this failure was a cause of the dog inflicting injury, then this person may be judged to be partially or wholly responsible for the dog bite injury.
However, the concept of contributory negligence may not apply in a claim brought under the dog bite statute. That is, a compelling argument can be made that since the statute imposes strict liability against the dog owner, it does not matter that the victim was also partially negligent or atfault in some way.

Another convincing argument is that the dog bite statute only expressly allows a defense of provocation of the dog. Had the legislature intended to allow a defense of contributory negligence asserted against the victim, it could have written this exception into the statute. The fact that the legislature did not expressly allow a defense of contributory negligence offers persuasive support for the contention that the dog owner should not be allowed to escape or minimize liability based on the omissions and/or conduct of the victim.
Under Washington common law, the courts have made it clear that a dog owner who has prior knowledge of his dog’s vicious or dangerous propensities is strictly liable for injuries inflicted by his dog. The courts have ruled that it does not matter if the victim was also somehow negligent or partially responsible for causing the dog to inflict injury. Thus, under common law the dog owner could not argue that the victim was negligent as long as the victim could prove that the owner knew his dog was dangerous or had vicious propensities. The reasoning was that a dog owner had an absolute duty to either destroy or confine a dog known to be dangerous and make sure that it could not injure another human being.

However, in 1986 the Washington legislature enacted a law now known as “comparative fault.” This law states that the fault of all potential individuals and entities must be determined when deciding whether a person is legally obligated to pay damages. This law was enacted after most of the body of law addressing common law liability for dog owners was created by Washington courts. Thus, there may be a question about whether certain aspects of the common law addressing dog owner liability is still good law. This may not be known for sure until a higher court is asked to decide this issue.

Dog Owner Negligence - Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21919 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Washington common law also permits an action against the owner of a dog based on a theory of negligence. The term negligence means that a person has failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances, giving rise to injuries or damages. Thus, if you can show that the dog bite was caused by the owner’s failure to exercise ordinary care in some way, then the dog owner is legally responsible for the injury. Also, if the owner failed to restrain or care for the dog in a particular manner and that omission was a proximate cause of the injury inflicted by the dog, then the owner is liable for the harm.

One example of a negligent dog owner is someone who knew that his dog had a propensity to jump on people and then failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent this conduct from happening. If the owner’s failure to control his dog was a cause of harm to another person, then a claim for negligence may exist. In that situation, the owner is responsible for any injuries and damages inflicted by the dog.

It is also important to remember that a theory of negligence can be asserted in addition to theories of common law strict liability (i.e., the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensity) and a violation of the dog bite statute. Again, these three legal theories of recovery are not mutually exclusive (i.e., they can all be asserted in the same case against the dog owner).

History of Dog Bites? Washington State Animal Attack Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21918 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.[1] The only requirement is that the dog owner had some knowledge of a trait or propensity of the animal likely to cause the accident or injury complained of.[2] This means it is not necessary to show that the dog has previously inflicted the same kind of injury as the current injury. For example, if the owner previously knew that the dog liked to growl and snarl, or bare its teeth at people, then this may be enough evidence to hold the owner liable for injuries if the dog later attacks and bites a person.

1. See Mailhot v. Crowe, 99 Wash. 623, 170 P. 131 (1918).

2. See Johnston v. Ohls, 76 Wn.2d 398, 457 P.2d 194 (1969).

Washington State Dog Bite Common Law - Seattle Animal Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21917 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Washington common law does not restrict liability only to the dog “owner.” The law makes it clear that anyone who “keeps or harbors” the dog can be liable for injuries and damages inflicted by the dog as long as that person had prior knowledge of the dog’s viciousness. The term “harbor” has been defined as one who protects the dog and keeps or treats the animal as his own. Thus, 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.

Overview of Washington State Common Law Liability for Dog Bites - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21916 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

First, a common law claim against a dog owner may be pursued in addition to a claim brought under Washington’s specific dog bite statute. The two types of claims are not mutually exclusive. Thus, a bite victim can pursue both common law and statutory violations against the dog owner. This only means that there are two theories being alleged to impose liability. It does not give a victim the right to collect any additional damages.

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. Any injury caused by such an animal subjects the owner to strict liability without the need to prove that the dog owner was negligent. The term “negligent” requires that you prove the dog inflicted injury due to the owner’s failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care.

Thus, a dog owner may be held liable for a dog bite if it can be proved that the owner merely had some prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous tendencies. It is not necessary to prove that the owner acted unreasonably or that the owner was careless—only that the owner knew that his or her dog was potentially dangerous to people. The courts have also stated that it is irrelevant how the dog became unusually dangerous, i.e., whether the injury happens intentionally or inadvertently, or whether it is due to the dog’s heredity.

Washington State Common Law Liability of Dog Owners - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21915 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

What Is ”Common Law”?
In our system of government, laws are usually created in two ways. The first way is when elected representatives draft a law and then enact it. At the state level, this body of representatives is called the “legislature.” The Washington state legislature creates laws known as “statutes.” At the local or city level, the body is often called the “city council” and it can create laws known as “ordinances.” At the county level these laws may be called “codes.” The “Dog Bite Statute” is an example of a law created by the Washington state legislature.

The second way that laws can be created is through the courts. This is also called “judge-made law” or more accurately, the “common law.” Essentially, the “common law” refers to a body of law that is created by the decisions or opinions of judges. These judge-made decisions must be followed and enforced by the lower courts, often called trial courts. A leading judge-made law is often referred to as “precedent” because a lower court must comply with the decision and also enforce it in other cases with similar fact patterns.

The courts are only permitted to decide issues of law based on the narrow set of facts before it. The courts cannot make law based on hypothetical facts. This means that the common law can take many years to develop. As a result, the common law may be created in a patch-work fashion. At times, seemingly inconsistent or contradictory laws can be reached by two different courts when the facts of the case are nearly identical or similar. The application of the common law can be much less predictable since the facts giving rise to the laws may be slightly different in subsequent cases. The existence of a new fact or the omission of a small fact in a new case can give rise to new exceptions or changes in the common law addressing that particular issue.

It is important to understand that the state legislature can enact a law that overrules or changes the common law on a particular subject. This can only occur if the legislature’s law is determined to be constitutional, which is a question left up to the courts. For example, by enacting the “Dog Bite Statute,” the Washington state legislature essentially supplemented or added to the common law by creating a new cause of action as long as the elements of the statute are met.

In Washington, there is a body of judge-made law (or common law) that has been created over the years with respect to liability of dog owners for injuries or damages inflicted by their dogs. The “common law” liability of dog owners is more fully explained below.

Dog Bite Case #721 - Washington State Animal Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21914 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

I represented a 9-year-old girl who was bitten on the face by a German shepherd. The dog was owned by the girl’s neighbor. It turns out that the girl and her friend were teasing the dog by dangling food in front of the animal. The dog would lunge for the food and the girls would pull away the food at the last second. The girl was holding food in front of her face, not realizing that the dog was closely watching her. She had turned away for a moment, and in that second the dog lunged toward the food. When the girl turned her face toward the dog, the animal had bitten her face while lunging for the food.

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.

Fortunately, I was able to show that several minutes had elapsed from the time that the girl was teasing the dog to the time that the bite occurred. This meant that the animal had bitten the girl, not when the dog was being teased, but when there was food nearby and the dog lunged for it. I was also able to show through other neighbors familiar with the dog that the animal had lunged for food on other occasions despite not being teased. Thus, I argued it did not matter that the dog had been previously teased by the girl. The dog would have bitten the girl while lunging for food nearby regardless of whether the dog had been teased several minutes earlier.

In the end, the insurance company agreed to settle the case, albeit for a much lower sum given the facts to support its provocation defense. Had the case gone to trial, a jury could have found that the girl did in fact provoke the dog, which would have meant no compensation would have been paid to take care of the girls’ medical expenses. The decision to settle was a wise one.

Dog Bite Case #721 - Washington State Animal Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21913 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Washington State Dog Bite Law: Provocation of the Dog is a Complete Defense - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21912 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Even if a person is injured by a dog while in a public place or while lawfully on private property, the dog owner may not be liable if the dog was provoked. Washington law states that the provocation of the animal is a complete defense to a claim against the dog owner. Whether the dog is provoked prior to the attack will depend on the facts and circumstances involved. Usually, if the dog is intentionally hit, teased, or taunted, and, as a result, bites the perpetrator, a claim for damages against the owner will likely not succeed. In that situation the dog owner will argue quite convincingly that the dog only inflicted injury after being subjected to conduct that most people would expect to cause a dog to act aggressively. The “provocation defense” appears to be a reasonable part of the law since it would be unfair to allow someone to profit from a dog bite injury which was only caused by that person’s desire to intentional provoke the animal in the first place.

Dog Bite Legal Example #4 - Seattle Washington Animal Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21911 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

I was contacted by the parents of a 15-year-old boy who was severely injured by a dog while on private property. It turns out the young boy had been trespassing on the dog owner’s property. While the boy was walking across the dog owner’s property, the animal chased him down and inflicted severe bite marks on the boy’s face, arms and legs.

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 insurance company had a compelling argument. I could not find any evidence to show that the dog had bitten other trespassers before the boy was injured. Had this evidence existed, it might have been possible to argue that the dog owner knew that people walked across his property and that his dog represented a danger. With this prior knowledge, it might have been possible to argue that the dog owner was negligent for failing to keep trespassers off his property, or failed to control his dog, or failed to warn trespassers that they would encounter a dangerous dog.

Without such evidence, I had to decline the case.

Location of Dog Attack Is An Important Legal Factor - Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21910 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Washington’s dog bite law states that liability can only be imposed against the dog owner if the victim “is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner…” Essentially, the dog bite injury must occur either while the victim is in a public place or while lawfully present on the dog owner’s property. If the injury occurs on the property of the dog owner, the law requires that the victim must have been present on this property with the owner’s consent or permission. The term “consent” can also be defined quite broadly. For example, the law recognizes that a person may be on a person’s property with the owner’s express consent or with the owner’s implied consent.

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.

The term “implied consent” usually occurs when the dog owner has allowed you onto his property without ever expressly inviting you. A property owner is said to impliedly consent to someone entering onto their land if that person is present in the performance of a duty imposed by law. For instance, the person who delivers the mail or makes a parcel delivery is usually one who is said to have been impliedly invited upon the owner’s private property to complete the delivery. Similarly, the boy who ventures onto a homeowner’s property to deliver the newspaper is entering the property with the implied consent of the owner. Whether implied consent exists will obviously depend on the facts and circumstances of why the victim was present on the dog owner’s property.

Dog Bite Law Suit Example - Seattle Pit Bull Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21909 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

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.

My client did find a dog. The classified ad described the dog as “gentle, loving and good with children.” He met the dog’s owner and took possession of the animal. Within a few hours after taking the dog home, the animal severely bit and injured the man’s 5-year-old daughter.

The insurance company for the dog’s former owner argued that there was no liability under the dog bite statute because this person was no longer the dog’s “owner” at the time of the attack. The argument raised a very interesting question, and there was no clear guidance under the law as to whether this contention had merit.

Fortunately, we were able to prove that the former dog owner had actual knowledge that his dog had bitten another young child before he decided to give the dog away. This evidence supported a claim of “common law” liability against the former owner. The theory of common law liability is explained more fully in the next chapter.

Liability Imposed Against the Dog's "Owner" - Washington State Dog Bite Law - Seattle Injury Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21908 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Washington’s dog bite statute only imposes liability against the “owner” of the dog. So occasionally a dispute arises about who actually owns the dog. For instance, if the person who harbors and takes care of the dog is not the true legal owner of the animal, can this person still be liable for the injuries inflicted by the dog? The answer is usually yes. Although the dog bite statute refers to liability of the dog “owner,” there are court decisions that broadly define the owner to include one who possesses and/or cares for the dog.

In one case that occurred back in 1988, the dog was purchased and “owned” by a young woman. But the woman kept her dog at her grandmother’s home. The grandmother resided with and cared for the dog during a three-year period before the dog bit and injured another person. The question was whether the grandmother could be held liable for the injuries when she was not necessarily the true owner of the dog. A Washington State court answered yes. The grandmother’s conduct of harboring and caring for the dog over a three-year period was sufficient conduct to make her an “owner” of the dog for purposes of imposing liability under the statute.   The court seemed to focus on the fact that the grandmother acted like the owner of the dog over a long period of time. Perhaps this case sends the message that if you act like the dog’s owner, or if you hold yourself out to others as the owner of the dog, you may be responsible for any injuries or damages that dog inflicts upon others.

Furthermore, there may be various local regulations and ordinances that also broadly define the owner of a dog. In King County a dog owner is broadly defined as “any person having an interest in or right of possession to the animal, or any person having control, custody, or possession of an animal…or by reason of the animal being seen residing consistently at a location, to an extent such that the person could be presumed to be the owner.”   This definition is broad enough to include any person who harbors or keeps the dog for a period of time that is sufficient to cause one to believe that the person may be the true or legal owner, even if that person is not.

The question may arise: what period of time is sufficient to cause one to believe that one who harbors the dog is the true or legal owner of that dog? This is a factual question that may need to be resolved by a jury. Certainly, the longer a person acts like the dog’s owner, or engages in conduct similar to the owner, means the greater likelihood that this person may also be legally responsible for the dog’s dangerous or vicious propensities toward other human beings.

Although the dog’s “owner” may be defined quite broadly, there are certain limitations that exist. For instance, the question has been raised whether a landlord can be considered an “owner” of the dog for purposes of subjecting the landlord to liability under the dog bite statute. Washington courts have clearly stated no. A landlord will usually not be considered the dog’s owner just based on that person’s status as a landlord.   Thus, if the dog owner is a renter or if the dog attack occurred on property that was being leased, the victim cannot rely on the dog bite statute to attempt to impose liability on the person who either owns or controls the property, unless that person also shares the responsibility of keeping, feeding and harboring the dog – tasks usually performed by the dog’s true owner.

Overview of Washington State's Dog Bite Statute - Seattle Animal Attack Attorney

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21907 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

Historically, a person could only recover damages against a dog owner if he could prove that the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or propensity to bite. This law was called the “One Bite Rule” because it meant that every dog owner had one “free bite” before civil liability could be imposed (i.e., damages could be collected against the dog owner). This turned out to be an unjust rule because there were no mandatory reporting requirements when a dog injured a person. Consequently, a dog bite victim had difficulty proving that the dog had previously injured someone else. If a dog owner denied having knowledge that his dog had previously injured another person, it was virtually impossible for the dog bite victim to prove otherwise and the claim would fail.

Fortunately, the Washington state legislature recognized the difficulties dog bite victims faced by having to prove the dog owner’s prior knowledge of the dog’s viciousness. As a result, the legislature supplemented the “One Bite Rule” by enacting a specific statute that addressed the proof problems associated with that rule. Now, Washington State has its own “Dog Bite Statute,” which removed the requirement of proving that the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s propensity to bite. That statute states as follows:
The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

As written, the law effectively holds dog owners strictly liable for any injuries or bites their dogs inflict on others. This means the owner is liable for a dog bite injury even if the dog has never bitten another human being and even if the dog has never previously acted in an aggressive manner. However, there are certain facts that must be present before a dog owner can be held legally responsible under Washington’s dog bite statute as discussed more fully below.

Basic Facts About Dog Bites Part Two - Dog Bite Lawyers in Seattle

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21906 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

• In 1994, the emergency room costs for dog bite victims in the United States was about $102 million, and overall direct medical costs were about $165 million.
• According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites accounted for about 25% of all claims on homeowner's insurance, costing more than $321 million in 2003.
• In 2002 (the latest year for which numbers are available), the average settlement amount for a dog bite was $16,600.
• According to the Western Insurance Information Service, the insurance industry paid out more than $1 billion in dog-bite claims in 1998 alone.

The state of Washington does not maintain an accurate state-wide database of all dog bite attacks that occur. But in King County there are more than 1,000 dog bite incidences reported each year. According to the Seattle Animal Shelter, pit bulls account for a disproportionate number of reported bites in Seattle alone. While pit bulls account for just 4% of the total dog population in Seattle, they are involved in 22% of all reported dog attack incidents as of 2007.

In Seattle so far in 2008, there have been 130 reported dog bites, a big drop from previous years. But almost half of the bites are attributed to pit bulls, which is double the rate of pit-bull bites reported in previous years. By comparison, Labrador retrievers account for 18% of all licensed dogs and 12% of dog bite incidences. German shepherds account for 6% of all licensed dogs and just 5% of dog bite attacks. Golden retrievers account for 6% of all dogs and zero percent of all dog bite incidences.

The local media has reported on more incidences involving severe dog attacks on humans in recent years. Many of these attacks involve pit bull breeds or their mixes. According to some medical personnel, there are more incidents involving serious injuries inflicted upon people by dogs than in recent years. Perhaps this is due to the population of dog owners increasing significantly. More than 85,000 dogs have been licensed in King County alone for the year 2006 – nearly double the rate in 1990.

Whatever the reason, I have seen more dog bite injury cases in my practice over the last 15 years. Although a high percentage of those involve pit bulls, there are a sizeable number involving other breeds, like German shepherds, labs, retrievers, Akitas, chow chows, and Rottweilers. More needs to be done to raise awareness among the public about how dangerous dogs can be and the damage that they can cause to people and children. I hope that this book will help in a small way to to realize that goal.

Basic Facts About Dog Bites Part One - Washington State Dog Bite Lawyer

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)21905 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are an estimated 68 million dogs kept as pets in the United States. 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. The CDC reports that at least 800,000 people each year suffer injuries from dog bites that are significant enough to require medical attention.

More than 60% of dog bites occur in the home of the dog owner. Approximately 77% of dog bite victims are members or close friends of the dog owner’s family and are therefore familiar with the dog. Thus, contrary to popular belief, most dog bite cases occur where the victim either knew the dog or was at least somewhat familiar with it.

Here are some more interesting facts about dogs and dog bite attacks.
• According to the American Medical Association, dog bites are the second leading cause of childhood injury, surpassing playground accidents.
• Approximately 20 people die every year as a result of a dog bite attack. (Most of the victims are children.)
• From 1979 to 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 human deaths in the United States. (Most of the victims were children.)
• Male dogs are more likely to bite people than female dogs by a margin of 2 to 1.
• Dogs in the age range of one and five years are involved in more dog bite injury cases than dogs older than 6 years.
• Dogs not known to the victim account for approximately 10% to 20% of all reported dog bites.
• Mixed breed dogs (not purebred dogs) are most often involved in inflicting bites to people.
• The breeds most often involved in fatal dog bite attacks are Rottweilers and pit bulls.
• The most common purebred dogs that are involved in biting humans are German shepherds and chow chows.
• The list of breeds most involved in both bite injuries and fatalities changes from year to year and from one area of the country to another, depending on the popularity of the breed.
• In the United States, pit bulls make up 1% to 3% of the overall dog population but cause more than 50% of serious attacks.
• The CDC states that a chained dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite a person than an unchained dog.
• Dogs that are not spayed or neutered are three times more likely to bite a person than those dogs who have been sterilized.

Concrete Washington Baby Twice Bitten By Grandmother's Dog l Seattle Dog Bite Lawyer

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)16949 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

A 9-month-old baby was attacked by her grandmother's dog in separate incidents on two consecutive days, Law enforcement officials are now recommending that charges be filed against the infant's grandmother. Washington dog bite law expert Seattle attorney Chris Davis has authored a legal analysis of this dob bite case.

To read the opinion visit:
http://theseattleaccidentattorney.com/another-dog-attack-9-month-old-baby-severely-maimed-l-seattle-injury-attorney/

Physicians Warn about Dangers of Dog Bites l Washington Dog Bite Lawyer

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)11811 — Mon, 11 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

We just found an excellent article on the ways to avoid being bitten by a dog:

http://www.kfor.com/lifestyle/health/kfor-health-dog-bite-warnings-story,0,4590368.story

New Dog Bite Statistics Released - Seattle Dog Bite Lawyer

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (Blog Author)11498 — Fri, 01 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

Seattle, WA, April 22, 2009 --(PR.com)-- DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims’ group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks by creating common sense laws, releases its first multi-year report on U.S. dog bite fatalities. The report covers a 3-year period -- from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 -- and analyzes data gathered from 88 dog bite incidences that caused death to a U.S. citizen.

The report documents dog breed information, property information (where the attack occurred) as well as dog bite victim age information.

Of the 88 fatal dog attacks recorded by DogsBite.org, pit bull type dogs were responsible for 59% (52). This is equivalent to a pit bull killing a U.S. citizen every 21 days during this 3-year period. The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% (16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81% (13).

Pit bulls are also more likely to kill an adult than a child. In the 3-year period, pit bulls killed more adults (ages 21 and over), 54%, than they did children (ages 11 and younger), 46%. In the 21-54 age group, pit bulls were responsible for 82% (14) of the deaths. The data indicates that pit bulls do not only kill children and senior citizens; they kill men and women in their prime years as well.

The report also shows that of the six victim age groups documented, the 55 and older group suffered the most fatalities 26% (23), followed by the 2-4 age group 22% (19). Between the ages of 0-4, the study reveals that 14% (12) of the fatal attacks involved a "watcher," a person such as a grandparent or babysitter watching the child. Of these attacks, 75% (9) involved a grandparent type.

Deadly dog attacks: only one common denominator

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (News Author)7749 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

We’ve all seen the sensationalistic headlines, each one more gruesome than the last, and all invariably bearing the image of a dog in a Cujo-pose. But the most recent fatal dog bite that seems to stick out in my mind the most happened late last year in Riverside County California.

At the time, I was researching information for a pit bull related story, and came across the mauling death of 60-year old Gerald Ademund. Apparently, just before Christmas, Ademund stepped into his backyard to smoke when his breeding pair of pit bulls attacked and killed him. The news reports surrounding this incident unwaveringly described the incident a “random attack,” but was it?

After reading the NCRC’s meticulously gathered statistics, this attack looks a lot more predictable.

Fatal Attacks Exceedingly Rare

You are more likely to be killed by a random bolt of lightning than by a dog—the numbers prove it.

According to the National Weather Service, in the year 2007, 45 people were struck and killed by lightning. That same year, fatalities attributed to dog attacks are reported as either 33, or 34.

And yet, how many splashy news articles can you recall regarding the unlucky guy smoked by lightning? Obviously, more lightning bolts than dogs were killing folks in 2007, and yet the only lightning story I can truly recall was the Croatian guy whose penis was transformed into a spontaneous lightning rod when he stopped to pee by the roadside. On second thought, that’s probably exactly why I remember the event—but my point is; I also recall dozens of national headlines blaring about this or that fatal dog mauling.

In retrospect, it certainly seems a bit out of proportion.

Another interesting fact the NCRC’s research has concluded is that if you are killed by lightning, it’s a certainty it was an act of God. If you’re killed by a dog, however, you can attribute it to an act of human stupidity. Well, OK—that’s my interpretation of the information, but in light of the evidence, the wording seems appropriate.

Parent of dog bite victim wants tougher animal control measures

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (News Author)7750 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

A Darlington County woman whose daughter’s ear was partly bitten off by a dog called for tougher animal control ordinances Monday night during a Darlington County Council meeting.

Robin Conger told council the dog that attacked her 7-year-old daughter nearly a month ago still has not been deemed dangerous.

She said she thinks the dog, a yellow Lab that has since been returned to its owner, should be put down, but she said at the least she wants it declared dangerous.

According to reports, the child was playing on a trampoline at a friend’s house when she was bitten.

Conger said half her daughter’s ear was bitten off in the attack. She said her daughter was bitten at least three times and suffered deep lacerations.

Conger showed council photographs of her daughter’s injuries. She said she has received no satisfactory answers from the county officials with whom she has attempted to discuss the matter.

She told council she did receive a letter from County Attorney Jim Cox stating that the dog would not be deemed dangerous.

“Nobody has given me any explanation as to why the dog has not been deemed dangerous,” Conger said.

Council received her comments as information but took no action.

In another matter, Chief Fourth Circuit Public Defender Michael Stephens and Deputy Circuit Public Defender Robert L. Kilgo Jr. presented their agency’s budget request for the upcoming budget year to council.

The agency, which serves the four counties that make up the state’s Fourth Judicial Circuit — Darlington, Marlboro, Chesterfield and Dillon — will not ask for an increase in funding from Darlington County for 2009-19, Kilgo said. The agency is requesting its funding from the county remain at its current level of $185,000, he said. Darlington County will provide 23 percent of the agency’s total $806,251 budget if council grants the request.

Kilgo, however, said the agency does plan to ask for increases from the other three counties in the circuit.

The budget proposal presented to council indicates the agency will seek $110,918 from Chesterfield County, up from $43,500; $100,187 from Dillon County, up from $52,000; and $87,809 from Marlboro County, up from $53,000.

Kilgo said the state already has cut the agency’s state funding by about $200,000, and he said another cut of about 1 percent could come as early as today.

He said the public defender’s office already has implemented five-day furloughs for agency employees to cope with the decline in state funding.

If the counties do not fund the agency, he said, the result could be layoffs since a significant part of the budget is tied up in salaries. It also could mean a return to the old public defender system, which Kilgo said is something nobody wants.

At one time, each of the four counties had its own public defender corporation. Last year, the four systems merged to form the new circuit system, Kilgo said.

— WBTW News13’s Kelly Gillespie contributed to this report.

A Recipe for Dog Bite Injuries: Kids, Dogs and Warm Weather

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (News Author)7751 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- If you and your child are romping in the park or enjoying a stroll on a warm spring day and a dog approaches, be ultra vigilant.

Children, warm weather, and dogs, even family dogs, don't mix well, according to a study conducted by pediatric otolaryngologists from the University at Buffalo's School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.

Results show that young children are especially vulnerable to severe dog bites in the head and neck areas, and that there is a correlation between cases of dog bites and rising temperatures.

The study appears in the March 2009 issue of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

The authors reviewed charts of the 84 children up to 19 years old who were treated for dog bites at Women and Children's Hospital in Buffalo from1999 – 2007.

Results show that the average age of injured children was six years. One-third of the bites occurred on the cheeks, 21 percent on the lips, and eight percent each on the nose and ears, results showed.

Sixty-four percent of the patients suffered more than one facial wound, and 40 percent of the total injuries had to be repaired in the operating room under general anesthesia.

Dog bites increased as the weather warmed, the researchers found, and a family pet was the culprit in 27 percent of the injuries.

Pit bull terriers were the breed most commonly reported or identified as the attacker, because of their notoriety. However, Behar notes that the breed of dog often wasn't known or wasn't recorded.

Health care providers should collect as much information as possible, including breed and sex of the dog, spay or neuter status, history of aggression, ownership and owner's use of restraint, time of the incident, the child's past history of dog bites, location of the incident and the dog's vaccination history.

"This information is important to be able to identify trends and develop and promote prevention strategies," says Behar.

Dog Attack Injures 2, Kills Smaller Dog

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (News Author)7752 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

A brutal dog-on-dog attack ends with one animal dead and two people injured on Thursday on Madison's East Side, authorities said.

Police said that a pit bull-like dog is being blamed for attacking a smaller dog that friends said was named Rocco in the 5200 block of Piccadilly Drive just before 7 p.m. Police said the owners of both animals were injured trying to break up the fight.

Authorities said that it ultimately took a Taser and a catch pole to gain control of the larger dog as witnesses watched.

"We were inside and all of a sudden, I heard screaming and the kids were screaming and I thought the dog got off the leash and got hit by a car," said witness Shanda Martel. "Then, they were in the middle of the road and the pit bull is just whipping the puppy up in the air like a rag doll. I mean, he's torn to shreds."

Martel says the larger dog's owner tried to get her dog off of the smaller one it was biting, but couldn't because her dog wasn't wearing a collar and she couldn't get a grip on him.

The owner of the larger dog surrendered the animal to animal control officials and is being held by the Dane County Humane Society. Police said that the dog had a history of aggressive behavior.

The dog's owner was cited for letting her dog run free and causing injury off her property.

Stay tuned to WISC-TV and Channel 3000 for continuing coverage.

Infant killed in dog attack

mischelle@injurytriallawyer.com (News Author)7748 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

MESA, Ariz. - March 5, 2009 - -- A 2-week-old Arizona girl has died after being attacked by the family's dog in their home.

Mesa police detective Steve Berry says police were called Wednesday night by a woman who said her daughter had been bitten by a family dog.

Berry says officers found the infant in the living room with bite wounds on her head. The baby was pronounced dead at the scene.

Berry says the mother had placed her daughter in a low-lying bassinet or crib and discovered the attack when she returned a few moments later.