Articles Posted in Dog Bite Injuries

dog-245x300Today I am blogging about a recent development in New York dog bite / attack injury law.  By way of background, New York is one of only a few states where, to win your case, you have to prove the dog had a prior bite or attack or otherwise displayed “vicious propensities” and that the owner knew about these propensities.  Otherwise, the owner of the dog is off the hook, even if the dog viciously attacks you.

This rule “bites”.  The problem with this rule is that it doesn’t allow victims to sue the owner of the dog for the owner’s negligence.  The owner might have a perfectly good dog with no viscous propensities, but the owner might nevertheless – through plain stupidity or negligence — cause even the Mother-Theresa-of-dogs to hurt people.

For example, in Doerr v. Goldsmith, a dog owner signaled for his nice, obedient doggy to come to him.  Bad idea.  The dog was on the opposite side of a very busy street.  The tail-wagging, happy-go-lucky pooch then bolted across the busy street to his loving owner, causing an innocent bicyclist to be thrown from his bike.

dogI have a love/hate relationship with dogs. I love my dog, but I hate dogs who chase me on my bike or who snarl at me on my runs. When I go bike riding out on the country roads near Geneva, NY where I live, I even carry a small pepper spray canister to defend myself from man’s best friend.

Yes, I protect myself from “unleashed” dogs.  But unfortunately, New York State negligence law does not.  Believe me.  As a NY personal injury lawyer who handles dog bite / attack cases, I know first hand!

The problem in New York – unlike in other states – is that to hold a dog owner liable for injuries, you need to show the owner knew or should have known the dog had “vicious propensities”. If you do, the owner is “strictly” liable to you for your injuries.  That’s all well and good where a dog with a history of biting or attacking bites you, but not much else.

dog.jpgI just love it when I’m right!

Last year I blogged about the Court of Appeals (highest court in NY State) case of Hastings v Suave where the Court made an exception to the general rule that, if an animal harms someone, the owner can be held liable only if he knew or should have known that the animal had “vicious propensities”. The issue in that case was whether a farmer could be held liable for negligently allowing his cow to stray out into the road and cause an accident. Obviously cows are not “vicious”, so under the general rule the farmer could not be held liable for the harm.

The wise Court saw the need for an exception to the rule, and held that “a landowner or the owner of . . . a farm animal . . . may be held liable where the animal is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept even when the animal did not display ‘vicious propensities'”.

cow in road.jpg-39572.jpgYou’re driving along a country highway, rounding a curve, when —- bam — you run into a cow. Yes, a cow! Why? Farmer Brown left a gaping hole in his fencing, and the big dumb animal wandered out. Can you sue the farmer for this obvious negligence?

Until just the other day, the answer was, surprisingly, “no”, at least not in New York. The rule in New York (which I blogged about last year) was that you could sue the owner of an animal which harms you ONLY if the owner knew or should have known the animal had “VICIOUS PROPENSITIES“.

This “vicious propensities” rule grew out of dog bite case law. The courts reasoned that it wouldn’t be fair to hold a dog owner liable for his dog’s first bite unless he knew his dog was a problem. This was sometimes referred to – though not very accurately – as the “one free bite rule”.

vicious dog.jpgI just got a lucky break on a Geneva NY dog bite case. I’ll tell you about it in a minute. But first let me tell you about an article I just read about animal attack cases in the New York Law Journal, which concluded that “New York is perhaps the toughest jurisdiction in the nation to be in” for dog bite (or any animal attack) cases. Why?

There is kind of a paradox in New York. On the one hand, New York is a “strict liability” state for animal attack (including dog bite) cases. That means that you don’t even have to prove that the animal’s owner was “negligent” or careless. If the dog bit you, or the animal attacked you, and you are injured, the owner is strictly (automatically) liable, BUT ONLY IF _______ (I’ll fill in the blank later). In other words, even if the owner was very careful in, for example, tying up the dog, but some neighborhood kids let him lose as a kind of gag, and the dog then bites someone, the owner is still liable BUT ONLY IF _____. The law is generous to animal attack or dog bit victims, BUT ONLY IF _____.

OK, enough already. Only if what? Only if the owner “KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES“.

pit bull.jpgPolice say that two pit bulls chased and bit a mail deliverer today in Schenectady. But that’s not big news. Dogs attack postal workers somewhere everyday. What gives this story more “bite” is that three pit bulls attached a woman in the same City, Schenectady, earlier in the week. Pit bulls are clearly “in the pits” in Schenectady these days.

For the sake of both these victims of dog attacks, I hope the dog owners’ homeowners’ insurance policies do not contain the “dog exclusion” I blogged about the other day. Some insurance policies exclude coverage only for aggressive breeds such as pit bulls, others exclude coverage for all dogs, but better homeowners’ policies don’t exclude dogs at all.

Take it from me, a New York dog bite lawyer. Dog exclusions are evil! They leave dog bite victims with no insurance money to compensate them for their medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering. The dog bite victim then has only two options: walk away and lick his or her wounds without the benefit of any compensation, or else sue the dog owner for compensation from his or her personal assets.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for vicious dog.jpgHomeowners’ Insurance carriers are in the dog house, at least in my book. Here’s why: In the past few years, in greater and greater numbers, homeowners’ insurance carriers are, unbeknownst to their insureds, slipping “dog exclusions” into their insurance policies. They exclude coverage for any injury caused by dogs, including, of course, dog bites.

Me and my New York dog bite lawyer brethren first started seeing dog bite exclusions pop up in homeowners’ insurance policies a few years ago. At first, they excluded only certain breeds of dogs, those deemed especially aggressive such as pit bulls. But more and more we are seeing outright exclusions for all dogs, without regard to the breed. In other words, Insurance companies are becoming equal opportunity dog excluders.

Why is this problem? Actually, it’s a dog-gone rip off. You see, one-third of all injury claims brought against homeowners are for dog bites. But when they exclude coverage for dog bites, they don’t offer you a 1/3 discount. In fact, they give you no discount at all. So your insurance carrier is charging you the same amount for 2/3 of the coverage. Quite a good deal for them. Hey — it’s a dog-eat-dog world I guess.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for vicious dog.jpgAs my readers know, I am a Central New York personal injury lawyer who loves to cycle and run along the beautiful roadways around Geneva, New York, where I live, and Auburn, New York, where I work. I like to call myself the “Finger Lakes bicycle accident lawyer”, but that’s somewhat of an exaggeration, since I handle a lot of other kinds of accident cases as well. Fortunately, there are not enough bike accidents in the Finger Lakes for a lawyer to make a living just representing injured cyclists.

The Finger Lakes provide a stunningly gorgeous background to my workouts. But nothing is perfect. Those same run and bike routes are strewn with some very nasty, aggressive dogs. It seems that some folks who live far out in the country don’t mind if their pets make mincemeat of bicyclists and runners.

My last post was about dog-on-bicyclist confrontations, and how bikers should deal with them. I said there was no consensus among cyclists about how to handle vicious dogs that run out at you on your bike, and asked other riders to give me their views.

Thumbnail image for vicious dog.jpgAnyone who has bicycled on Central New York’s beautiful country roads, as I have, knows about the dangerous dogs lurking out there in the most pristine areas. And many of us have ended up in a ditch, or on the pavement, bloodied or with puncture wounds, because of it. Some of us have even been seriously injured and I (in my capacity as Central New York dog attack lawyer!) have been honored to represent them against the dog owner. Unfortunately, run-ins with dogs are part of cycling in the Central New York countryside.

As a Central New York personal injury lawyer and cyclist who has handled New York dog-on-bike cases, I have come to the conclusion that there are three main dangers in every dog-on-cyclist encounter: (1) the dog can bite you; (2) the dog can get caught up in your spokes and cause you to fall; and (3) the dog can divert your attention away from careful riding, and thus cause you to get hit by a car or fall from your bike. This last danger is the most serious one, but the one most cyclists overlook.

There is no universal agreement among cyclists about how to deal with a belligerent dog hovering close to foot or wheel. Here are the main categories of advice riders will give you: (1) ignore the pooch and keep riding as fast as you can; (2) spray the killer with your water bottle (the shock of the cold water will stop him dead in his tracks); (3) carry a can of “mace for dogs” with you and really teach the dog a lesson; (4) unclip the closest foot and kick him hard; (5) grab your bike pump and swing it at him, at least threateningly, if not to kill (5) if he is really close and might get caught up in your bike, slow down and, if necessary, get off your bike, put the bike between you and the dog to protect yourself, and then slowly talk your way out of the situation.

Thumbnail image for vicious dog.jpgMy last Central New York injury law blog was about New York dog law and how it has no “teeth”. It doesn’t protect innocent bicyclists, pedestrians and runners from dog bites and dog attacks because it does not make dog owners pay for injuries their dogs inflict when they violated leash laws. I explained how in New York, unlike in other states, a dog owner is not liable for the injuries his dog causes to pedestrians, bikers, runners and others merely because he violated a leash law and allowed his dog to roam unrestrained. In New York this is not enough. You have to show that the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious tendencies, or of its tendency to run out after pedestrians, runners or bicyclists. This is sometimes hard to prove, because the dog owner will invariably deny that his dog ever did this before.

But, as usual after I publish a blog, I had a “I should-have-said” moment. In this case, I should have added an anecdote about a case I had a few years ago where the dog owner’s insurance adjuster (with whom I was negotiating behalf of my client) did not know this rule. He, like many people, assumed that a dog owner would be liable for injuries caused by a dog when the dog owner disobeyed a leash law, thus allowing the dog the opportunity to attack a bicyclist, runner or pedestrian.

I settled the case with him and got my client a fair settlement, even though I knew I was able to do so only because the adjuster was ignorant about the law. Did I feel bad about that? Absolutely not; my client deserved the compensation, I did not deceive the insurance company about the law, rather, its adjuster was just too lazy to look it up, and the law in New York is so unjust that this “error” on the part of the insurance adjuster actually worked a justice.

badges
Contact Information