Dog Bites Off Little Boys Hand thread DELETED

[cstone]

Dogs are amazing. As a species, they have been a great asset to human beings. I have been blessed to have had many dogs in my life.

Dogs are pretty simple, IMO. Like any living things there will be bad ones and good ones and everything has bad days and good days. With few exceptions the bad dogs I have dealt with were always creations of the humans they were around.

Dog climbs above 23,000 ft for food and a warm spot to sleep with someone that pays attention to her. Wouldn't life be wonderful if everyone we dealt with was so easy to be with.

[Mazin]

So Irving you never got to respond to Mr Prena's question before the lock but how would the Insurance side of that situation work?

[Irving]

So Irving you never got to respond to Mr Prena's question before the lock but how would the Insurance side of that situation work?

I never saw that question, but I'll give it my best shot. There would probably be a couple different moving parts in a claim like that.

Primarily, the insurance company is going to start with the basic question of "What, if anything, did our insured do wrong?"

Dog secured behind a solid fence? Check
Dog never left the property? Check
Was the gap under the fence a reasonable gap?
Was the gap under the fence a reasonable gap given the dog's history (if it even has one)?

Given that first basic question, I'd say that the home owners didn't do anything wrong. They took reasonable precautions to keep their dog in their own yard and the response would be along the lines of "were it not for the actions of the little boy, this event would not have happened."

That's the basic overview. If there were other issues that could have been mitigated to prevent this, then some liability could be placed on the property owners. A gate with a loose closure so it creates a pretty big gap or something.

Most home owners general liability policies have a coverage (I forget what it's called) that is designed to pay out in situations where the home owner's aren't liable but a payout will make everything go away. This was usually capped at something like $5,000 with the policies I dealt with. This coverage basically says, "Look, we're not really at fault here, but here's some money so you go away and don't sue us." Money can go a long way to smooth things over and that is exactly what this is for. Your friend is over drinking at your house and steps off the edge of the deck at night and breaks his ankle. It's not really your fault since he was drunk, but that part of your deck isn't lighted well so there could be some liability. Here's $5,000 for your friend's ER bill so he can get some help and doesn't have to sue you and ruin your friendship. I'd fully expect this coverage to be paid out in this situation.

Finally, insurance companies have a big list of "problem" dogs that includes most dogs we're familiar with. If the dog is on there, and even if it isn't, and even if there is no fault, there is a chance that the company would cancel their homeowner's policy.

tl;dr

I'd say the homeowner probably wouldn't be at fault with the info we have, certainly not majority at fault, but the policy would probably still pay something out to the boy's family.

Insurance is only as strict as the person handling the claim, and things get murky when people are involved. For example, if you're driving your car and a pedestrian, clearly in the wrong jumps out in front of you and you hit them, even if they are determined to be 100% at fault, your insurance company is not very likely to subrogate for the damages to your vehicle, even though they are within their right to do so.

[MrPrena]

So Irving you never got to respond to Mr Prena's question before the lock but how would the Insurance side of that situation work?

I never saw that question, but I'll give it my best shot. There would probably be a couple different moving parts in a claim like that.

Primarily, the insurance company is going to start with the basic question of "What, if anything, did our insured do wrong?"

Dog secured behind a solid fence? Check
Dog never left the property? Check
Was the gap under the fence a reasonable gap?
Was the gap under the fence a reasonable gap given the dog's history (if it even has one)?

Given that first basic question, I'd say that the home owners didn't do anything wrong. They took reasonable precautions to keep their dog in their own yard and the response would be along the lines of "were it not for the actions of the little boy, this event would not have happened."

That's the basic overview. If there were other issues that could have been mitigated to prevent this, then some liability could be placed on the property owners. A gate with a loose closure so it creates a pretty big gap or something.

Most home owners general liability policies have a coverage (I forget what it's called) that is designed to pay out in situations where the home owner's aren't liable but a payout will make everything go away. This was usually capped at something like $5,000 with the policies I dealt with. This coverage basically says, "Look, we're not really at fault here, but here's some money so you go away and don't sue us." Money can go a long way to smooth things over and that is exactly what this is for. Your friend is over drinking at your house and steps off the edge of the deck at night and breaks his ankle. It's not really your fault since he was drunk, but that part of your deck isn't lighted well so there could be some liability. Here's $5,000 for your friend's ER bill so he can get some help and doesn't have to sue you and ruin your friendship. I'd fully expect this coverage to be paid out in this situation.

Finally, insurance companies have a big list of "problem" dogs that includes most dogs we're familiar with. If the dog is on there, and even if it isn't, and even if there is no fault, there is a chance that the company would cancel their homeowner's policy.

tl;dr

I'd say the homeowner probably wouldn't be at fault with the info we have, certainly not majority at fault, but the policy would probably still pay something out to the boy's family.

Insurance is only as strict as the person handling the claim, and things get murky when people are involved. For example, if you're driving your car and a pedestrian, clearly in the wrong jumps out in front of you and you hit them, even if they are determined to be 100% at fault, your insurance company is not very likely to subrogate for the damages to your vehicle, even though they are within their right to do so.

Thanks for the info and bring the question back into the topic.

[Skip]

I almost posted in that first thread.

[Great-Kazoo]

I never saw that question, but I'll give it my best shot. There would probably be a couple different moving parts in a claim like that.

Primarily, the insurance company is going to start with the basic question of "What, if anything, did our insured do wrong?"

Dog secured behind a solid fence? Check
Dog never left the property? Check
Was the gap under the fence a reasonable gap?
Was the gap under the fence a reasonable gap given the dog's history (if it even has one)?

Given that first basic question, I'd say that the home owners didn't do anything wrong. They took reasonable precautions to keep their dog in their own yard and the response would be along the lines of "were it not for the actions of the little boy, this event would not have happened."

That's the basic overview. If there were other issues that could have been mitigated to prevent this, then some liability could be placed on the property owners. A gate with a loose closure so it creates a pretty big gap or something.

Most home owners general liability policies have a coverage (I forget what it's called) that is designed to pay out in situations where the home owner's aren't liable but a payout will make everything go away. This was usually capped at something like $5,000 with the policies I dealt with. This coverage basically says, "Look, we're not really at fault here, but here's some money so you go away and don't sue us." Money can go a long way to smooth things over and that is exactly what this is for. Your friend is over drinking at your house and steps off the edge of the deck at night and breaks his ankle. It's not really your fault since he was drunk, but that part of your deck isn't lighted well so there could be some liability. Here's $5,000 for your friend's ER bill so he can get some help and doesn't have to sue you and ruin your friendship. I'd fully expect this coverage to be paid out in this situation.

Finally, insurance companies have a big list of "problem" dogs that includes most dogs we're familiar with. If the dog is on there, and even if it isn't, and even if there is no fault, there is a chance that the company would cancel their homeowner's policy.

tl;dr

I'd say the homeowner probably wouldn't be at fault with the info we have, certainly not majority at fault, but the policy would probably still pay something out to the boy's family.

Insurance is only as strict as the person handling the claim, and things get murky when people are involved. For example, if you're driving your car and a pedestrian, clearly in the wrong jumps out in front of you and you hit them, even if they are determined to be 100% at fault, your insurance company is not very likely to subrogate for the damages to your vehicle, even though they are within their right to do so.

The generic name for the coverage is called Slip and Fall.

One item not mentioned is . Did the Owners have BEWARE OF DOG sign[s] posted?

If they did, then the issue is one of the home owner acknowledging their dogs may be viscous. OOPS they're liable .

Without a sign saying so, no one's the wiser . Our "friend" and former ins agent while visiting one day said. You should really remove that BoD sign. Then explained what i just wrote, only in a little more insurance mumbo jumbo.

[Fentonite]

That got me curious, and I found a site that lists dog liability stuff for each state. It states that Colorado and Florida actually exempt dog owners from bite liability if they have a BoD sign, with a link to the CRS. I don't know if the statute still reads the same or not. Surprised I'd never heard such a thing (about the statute - I'd heard about potential liability before). I still have signs up, even though I don't have biters. I've seen solicitors back away when they see the sign, even with no dog present, and I do think there is a deterrent value for bad guys. But having those signs shouldnt imply that my dogs are mean... I just wanna make sure that anyone with a dog allergy is aware before entering my property. I'd hate for someone to feel itchy.

https://www.animallaw.info/topic/tab...ility-statutes

Primary Citation: C. R. S. A. ? 13-21-124
Country of Origin: United States
Last Checked: October, 2018
more +
Summary:
This 2005 Colorado law makes a dog owner strictly liable for dog bites only if the victim of the bite suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property 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. Further, the victim is entitled to recover only economic damages (as opposed to noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc.) in a civil suit against the dog owner. Also, the statute provides that an owner is not liable where the victim is unlawfully on public or private property; where the victim is on the owner's property and the the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating "no trespassing" or "beware of dog"; where the victim has clearly provoked the dog; where the victim 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 where 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.

(1) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Bodily injury" means any physical injury that results in severe bruising, muscle tears, or skin lacerations requiring professional medical treatment or any physical injury that requires corrective or cosmetic surgery.

(b) "Dog" means any domesticated animal related to the fox, wolf, coyote, or jackal.

(c) "Dog owner" means a person, firm, corporation, or organization owning, possessing, harboring, keeping, having financial or property interest in, or having control or custody of, a dog.

(d) "Serious bodily injury" has the same meaning as set forth in section 18- 1-901(3)(p), C.R.S.

(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:

(a) While the person is unlawfully on public or private property;

(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";

(c) While the dog is being used by a peace officer or military personnel in the performance of peace officer or military personnel duties;

(d) As a result of the person knowingly provoking the dog;

(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

(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.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to:

(a) Affect any other cause of action predicated on other negligence, intentional tort, outrageous conduct, or other theories;

(b) Affect the provisions of any other criminal or civil statute governing the regulation of dogs; or

(c) Abrogate any provision of the "Colorado Governmental Immunity Act", article 10 of title 24, C.R.S.

CREDIT(S)

Added by Laws 2004, Ch. 168, ? 1, eff. April 21, 2004.

[Martinjmpr]

From a legal standpoint, the issue is negligence. There are 4 things a plaintiff has to prove in order to have a valid negligence claim:

Duty - The Defendant has to owe a DUTY to the plaintiff (in these types of situations the duty is generally to 'act as a reasonable person would act.')
Breach - The defendant has to have breached his duty to the plaintiff
Harm - the plaintiff has to have actually been harmed, and
Causation - the proximate (meaning closest in time and place) causation of the plaintiff's harm has to be the defendant's breach of his duty.

In this case, assuming the parents of the boy sue the owner of the dog, whether or not they prevail would depend on whether the factors above could be proven.

Did the dogs owner owe a duty to the plaintiff? Yes, in the sense that all people who own dogs are expected to exercise reasonable precautions to make sure their dog doesn't harm someone else.

Did the owner breach that duty? Hard to say without more facts but it doesn't seem so. If the owner put up a fence that was reasonably constructed to keep his dog in, he probably did not breach his duty. On that basis alone, it's hard to see how a suit vs. the dog's owner could move forward.

There is also an old, old English Common Law rule that says, in essence, "every dog is allowed one bite." That is, if your dog has a propensity for biting people and has demonstrated that propensity (by biting people) then you can't claim ignorance when your dog bites someone. But if your dog has never bit anyone before then that rule doesn't apply (which is where the "one bite" aspect comes into play.) So if, for example, there had been other children bitten by the same dog by sticking their hand under the same fence, then there might be some additional duty imposed on the dog's owner to make sure it doesn't happen again - whether that's repairing the fence, muzzling the dog, etc. But all that is very situation-dependent.

The breed of the dog doesn't generally come into play, except that there is another legal doctrine called Negligence Per Se. Negligence Per Se is a doctrine that is where there is a law that is put in place to protect a specific class of people from a specific type of harm, and someone violates that law, and as a result, someone who is in the class of people intended to be protected is injured, then negligence is presumed.

So if, for example, there is a pit bull ban and someone illegally keeps a pit bull in their home, and that pit bull bites someone, they would likely be considered negligent even if there would be no negligence but for the breed of the dog, since keeping that breed is itself illegal.

As a real-life example, my wife was attacked by a dog in 2005 that left scars that are still visible and problems with her leg that she is still having. The owners were cited for: Dog off leash in an area where dogs were required to be leashed; No registration on the dog; and "vicious animal." The first and last, by themselves, are enough to establish Negligence Per Se which is why the dog's owners settled out of court.

[Irving]

I don't know about you guys, but framing this discussion in this legal context really ruins my memories of The Sand Lot.

[Ah Pook]

If you guys thought the first article posted caused some drama, just wait until you read this one.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...0ft-himalayan/

I can't imagine...