If someone tresspasses on your property, and you have a guard dog on duty, with signs saying "Beware of Dog" or "Security Dog on Duty" and "No Tresspassing" signs visible to the public, and a person tresspasses on your property with no regard for the sign, and is attacked by your dog on duty, can they file a lawsuit, even though you have several warning signs telling them to stay off your property? They can ATTEMPT to take action, like in any case, but chances are, they won't win the case. If you're well prepared, have homeowners insurance and these signs up, then they will most likely not have any case against you.
The owner of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human, whether or not the dog has previously been declared potentially dangerous or dangerous, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a class C felony punishable in accordance with RCW 9A.20.021. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the human severely injured or killed by the defendant's dog: (a) Trespassed on the defendant's real or personal property which was enclosed by fencing suitable to prevent the entry of young children and designed to prevent the dog from escaping and marked with clearly visible signs warning people, including children, not to trespass and to beware of dog
Here are a few examples of how courts have come down on the negligence issue in specific cases:
A dog is chained in the unfenced front yard, so that it can't reach the sidewalk, and a "Beware of Dog" sign is posted. Someone walks up to the dog and gets bitten. Ruled: The owner was not negligent. Confining the dog inside the owner's property and posting a sign are reasonable precautions against someone being injured.
A house guest, searching for the bathroom, is frightened when she hears the hosts' dog growl, and falls down a flight of stairs. The dog was behind a gate in the laundry room, across the hall from the bathroom. Ruled: The owners were not negligent; they took reasonable precautions and were not liable for the injury.
A dog owner lets his dog loose in his yard, and the dog runs at a bicyclist riding by. Trying to avoid the dog, the cyclist is thrown from his bicycle and suffers
permanent hearing loss.
Jury verdict: The dog's owner was negligent.
A dog owner lets his dog loose in his yard, and the dog runs into the street and hits a motorcycle, seriously injuring the riders. Ruled: Because the dog did not have a history of chasing vehicles, the dog owner was not negligent
A Dog Owner's Legal Defenses
So far, we've talked about the legal rights and options of someone who's injured by a dog. But the dog owner is entitled to fight back with another set of legal theories.
The owner may be able to avoid liability if the injured person:
provoked the injury from the dog
knowingly took the risk of being injured by the dog
was trespassing
was breaking the law, or
was unreasonably careless, and that carelessness contributed to the injury.
This section discusses each of these defenses. It's important to keep in mind three things about them:
Not all defenses can be used in all states.
Sometimes, the defenses that can be used depend on what the dog owner is being sued for. For example, some defenses may be available if the dog owner's liability is based on a common law theory, but not under a dog-bite statute.
Some dog-bite statutes make the victim prove that he or she wasn't at fault - the dog owner doesn't have to prove the victim was at fault. (See Dog-Bite Statutes, above.)
Was the Dog Provoked?
A dog owner may be able to successfully defend a lawsuit by showing that the injured person provoked the dog.
Some acts - for example, hitting or teasing a dog - clearly are the kind of provocation that will get the dog and its owner off the hook.
But just as the motivation of the dog is unimportant for legal purposes - it doesn't matter that the dog that knocked you down a flight of stairs was just trying to be friendly - the motivation of the injured person is irrelevant, too. A person may innocently and unintentionally provoke a dog. If, for example, you accidentally step on a dog's tail, that's provocation.27 Or if a toddler tries to hug a strange dog, and the dog turns and bites the child, the dog's owner will probably not be liable for the injury, regardless of the dog's prior behavior.
A general word of warning: Unique circumstances may always affect the legal outcome. If, for example, a dog were known to have a hair trigger around children, the legal result could be different.
There are many ways a person, especially one unfamiliar with dogs, can unknowingly provoke a dog. Petting even an otherwise friendly dog when it's eating, going near its special territory, or intervening in a dog fight can provoke a hostile response. And dogs in strange surroundings are often nervous and may bite out of fear if approached.
Some dog-bite statutes require the injured person to prove that the dog wasn't provoked. (See chart above on Dog-Bite Statutes.) In two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut), if the injured person is a child less than seven years old, the law presumes the child didn't provoke the dog. In those states, an owner who wants to assert provocation as a defense bears the burden of proving it. The Ohio statute requires proof that the dog wasn't teased, tormented, or abused.
Did the Injured Person Know the Risk of Injury?
Since I am a dog, beware my fangs.
- The Merchant of Venice, Act III
A dog owner may also avoid liability by proving that the injured person knew there was a risk of injury from the dog, but voluntarily took that risk. The theory is that someone who knowingly took the risk and was injured can't later hold the dog's owner responsible for such foolhardiness.
Example. You warn a visitor that your dog, which is in the back yard, might bite a stranger who entered the yard. The visitor goes in the yard anyway and gets bitten. If sued, you would have a good argument that the visitor knew of and took the risk of injury.
In a real-life example, a jury decided that a house guest, severely bitten by a 95-pound Akita, had put himself at risk. The man, who had taken care of the dog several times over the years, had gone into a room where the dog was closed off from the rest of the house. He sued the dog's owner for negligence (the incident took place in Tennessee, which has no dog-bite statute), but the jury decided that the owner hadn't done anything wrong and rejected his $375,000 claim.
The same goes for warning signs. Someone who ignores a clear, prominently posted "Beware of Dog" sign is probably not going to be able to blame the dog's owner for any injuries. For example, a Maryland delivery man ignored a "Guard Dog on Duty" sign at a warehouse and was severely bitten by a German shepherd that most definitely was on duty. He sued but lost. A court concluded that he "voluntarily left his place of safety" and knowingly took the risk of injury.
People who make a living working with dogs - as groomers, pet sitters, veterinarians or kennel operators, for example - are generally presumed to voluntarily take the risk of a dog bite. For example, the owners of a dog that bit a Georgia kennel attendant were not held liable. The court ruled that the attendant knew the risk - especially in light of the fact that the owners had told the kennel that the dog might bite, and a sign on the dog's cage said "will bite."
(Another reason that professionals cannot sue owners is that they accept responsibility for controlling a dog.
A Minnesota court ruled that a groomer had control over a dog and so was a "keeper" under the state's dog-bite law - and unable to collect for damages.)
Similarly, someone who has agreed to look after a dog for the owner may not be able to sue if injured by the dog. For example, a Connecticut man, who was taking care of a friend's dog for a week, sued after the dog bit him. The court ruled that the man had assumed responsibility for and control over the dog, and was not entitled to sue the owner. The state's dog-bite statute, the court said, was intended to protect people who are not in a position to control a dog.33
This rule applies only if the worker has taken control over the dog and can presumably take measures to reduce the risk of injury. In a California case, for example, a dog bit a groomer before the groomer had decided whether or not to accept custody of the dog (which was growling at her). The court ruled that the groomer had not yet taken the risk of injury.
In some states that have dog-bite statutes, this defense can't be used (Ohio, for example); in other words, the owner is liable for injuries even if the injured person knowingly risked the injury. For example, in an Iowa case, the owners of a dog that bit a groomer were not allowed to argue that the groomer had taken the risk of injury upon herself. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that under the dog-bite statute, the only defense available to a dog owner is that the injured person was "doing an unlawful act" when injured.
Similarly, an Oklahoma appeals court ruled that the owners of a dog could be liable, under the state's dog bite law, for the injury the dog caused to an animal clinic employee who was bitten by the dog while walking it. In its discussion, the court did not mention the injured person's assumption of the risk; a dissenting judge opined that this defense should have applied.
Some other states (California and Illinois, for example) do allow this defense in lawsuits based on the state's dog-bite statute. Some state courts have yet to consider the question.
Was the Injured Person Trespassing?
In most states, dog owners aren't liable to trespassers who are injured by a dog. But the rules are convoluted and vary significantly from state to state.
In general, a trespasser is someone who wasn't invited on the property. Unless you warn people off your property with signs or locked gates, yes anyone can file a lawsuit whether it would b successful id another issue. probably not but ur in the US & i'm in the UK. but it would sound like u have done everything to draw it to the persons attention. |
