|
A young woman was bit by a dog that jumped over the
fence. The dog was not teased, The young woman went
to the hospital and the animal control people took
the dog because it did not have its current rabbies
shots. I understand the dog was at least part pit
bull.
My interest here is purely legal and my opinion is
that this is a slam dunk "owner is liable" case.
Does anyone know the Marland law for this case?
Dick
|
| |
| |
Dick Adams wrote:
[claims unprovoked dog attack]
My interest here is purely legal and my opinion is
that this is a slam dunk "owner is liable" case.
Does anyone know the Marland law for this case?
Most dog ordinances are local, not state so I think you'll need to
research a bit further and give locale too. Also laws aren't needed in
tort cases. An person can be civilly liable even if he's broken no laws.
As to dog bites, some locales used to have a concept that every dog gets
one free bite, but I think that's pretty much all gone. So if the attack
was unprovoked and off the property of the dog owner, the bitee has a
pretty decent case unless there are other factors.
As usual, the outcome is dependent upon many details not in your OP.
-paul
ianal
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:09:37 -0400, rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams)
wrote:
A young woman was bit by a dog that jumped over the
fence. The dog was not teased, The young woman went
to the hospital and the animal control people took
the dog because it did not have its current rabbies
shots. I understand the dog was at least part pit
bull.
My interest here is purely legal and my opinion is
that this is a slam dunk "owner is liable" case.
My opinion is idle and without even a level of academic
diligence. While I'm sure you know what that means, to anyone
else reading it, it is not legal advice and might not even be
right. Anyone relying on it is a fool.
Does anyone know the Marland law for this case?
Under current Maryland law, a dog owner may be responsible for the
acts of his animal under two alternate theories of liability --
negligence or strict liability, the latter arising from the owner's
knowledge of the animal's propensities to cause harm. See McDonald v.
Burgess, 254 Md. 452, 456, 255 A.2d 299, 301 (1969); Finneran v. Wood,
249 Md. 643, 241 A.2d 579 (1968); Herbert v. Ziegler, 216 Md. 212,
216, 139 A.2d 699, 702 (1958). We examine both.
Slack v. Villari, 59 Md. App. 462, 470 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)
---
I'm not seeing any statutes on common, ordinary dog bite scenarios
in Maryland statutory law.
Negligence is just your ordinary negligence tort--failure to exercise
the degree of care of a reasonable person, proximately causing injury.
Strict liability is the common law category often applied to people
who keep "dangerous animals." A dog is not presumed to be dangerous,
and the owner must have some reason to know of its danger.
It looks like negligence per se is not a presumption, but merely
evidence, in this kind of case:
---
It is axiomatic that the duty, or standard of conduct, required by a
reasonable person in a particular situation may be established by
legislative fiat. Volkswagen of America v. Young, 272 Md. 201, 218,
321 A.2d 737 (1974). Under Maryland law, the violation of a statutory
duty establishes a prima facie case of negligence where the violation
is the proximate cause of the accident or injury, but does not
constitute negligence per se. Whitt v. Dynan, 20 Md.App. 148, 154-55,
315 A.2d 122 (1974). The same principle applies to the violation of a
county ordinance. Paramount Development Corp. v. Hunter, 249 Md. 188,
193, 238 A.2d 869 (1968).
Slack v. Villari, 59 Md. App. 462, 483 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)
---
Presumably, there is some kind of ordinance about keeping animals
contained. I'm not sure whether jumping a fence, if there's nothing
defective or substandard about the fence, would violate one of these
ordinances or bring a negligence per se issue into the case.
---
The mere accidental escape of an animal, without proof of the owner's
knowledge or negligence, is insufficient evidence to constitute a
violation of similar statutes couched in identical terms. See
Santanello v. Cooper, 106 Ariz. 262, 475 P.2d 246 (1970); Jett v.
Norris, 133 Ga.App. 596, 211 S.E.2d 639, reh. den. (1974). See
generally, cases collected in 34 A.L. R.2d 1285, 4 at 1289-91 and
later case service; 4 Am. Jur.2d 116, Animals, pp. 367-68.
Slack v. Villari, 59 Md. App. 462, 472 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1984)
---
It looks like if this dog was not dangerous, or at least that the
owner had no reason to think it was dangerous, that a court would
analyze the situation as a potential negligence tort.
The case cites the Restatement of Torts (Second):
Except for animal trespass, one who possesses or harbors a domestic
animal that he does not know or have reason to know to be abnormally
dangerous, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal if, but
only if,
(a) he intentionally causes the animal to do the harm, or
(b) he is negligent in failing to prevent the harm.
Restat 2d of Torts, 518
|
| |
| |
On Apr 21, 11:14 am, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net>
wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:
[claims unprovoked dog attack]
...
As to dog bites, some locales used to have a concept that every dog gets
one free bite, but I think that's pretty much all gone. So if the attack
was unprovoked and off the property of the dog owner, the bitee has a
pretty decent case unless there are other factors.
I thought the 'every dog gets one bite' referred to killing the
dog, not the liability of the owner for that first bite.
--
FF
|
| |
| |
|
