The citations (and $900 fine) were "supposedly" given to the owner of the dogs. That is what we'll be trying to find out Monday. Why were we told that citations were given, if they actually weren't? Also, we'll ask, why weren't citations given since there were several complaints about these dogs before the attack?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Attorney's dog bites
- Thread starter curb1
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
We just got copies of the citations. Dog control officer held citations for three months and then changed them to warnings. She never turned them in to wherever citations are turned into at the courthouse. She is now saying that it ends the case.
So we had a dog that had a previous history of menacing, attack a 70 year old man on victim's property. Man is bitten, has to go to the emergency room. Dog control officer asks him if he will appear in court to testify against owner. Man says yes. The owner of the dog is a local attorney and asks the dog control officer what he can do? He makes the attacked person's insurance pay for the bites. The dog owner does pay $74 to the attacked person for hospital co-pay. Three months go by and victim doesn't hear anything. He checks with dog control officer who says she made it a warning (three months after attack) and end of case. She said victim told her (he didn't) he was only interested in out of pocket expenses so she made it a warning. Also, the attack dog was unlicensed.
So we had a dog that had a previous history of menacing, attack a 70 year old man on victim's property. Man is bitten, has to go to the emergency room. Dog control officer asks him if he will appear in court to testify against owner. Man says yes. The owner of the dog is a local attorney and asks the dog control officer what he can do? He makes the attacked person's insurance pay for the bites. The dog owner does pay $74 to the attacked person for hospital co-pay. Three months go by and victim doesn't hear anything. He checks with dog control officer who says she made it a warning (three months after attack) and end of case. She said victim told her (he didn't) he was only interested in out of pocket expenses so she made it a warning. Also, the attack dog was unlicensed.
Has the victim spoke with his insurance company about these events? I would think the insurance company would hold the dog owner accountable for the expenses they incurred, as a result of the dog owners negligence. (Not safely confining or controlling his dogs)
The insurance companies have their own attorneys, who don't worry about who's feet they step on, or wallets they lighten as they're only concern is not losing money by making payouts on a claim for which there is clearly a party that can and should be held accountable for the incident which brought forth the claim
Also, you may be having trouble getting answers and/or explanations concerning the normal procedures followed in this type of situation, because according to you're post, you are not involved in this matter. Aside from being a concerned neighbor and possibly afraid the dogs could harm you or you're family, you have no claim or legal right to receive any reply or explanation in this matter. It is between you're neighbor, the dog owner and the department of animal control.
If you're neighbor gets his insurance company involved and they send out an investigator and/or have their legal department contact the involved parties, he will probably see a whole new response to the matter as it will not be something that can be so easily swept under the carpet. (If that is what is happening) The insurance company will get to the truth and all the involved parties should be aware of this. As such, it would be quite foolish for them to play any games changing records and/or deleting prior reports which were written up on these animals.
Have you're neighbor check with his insurance company to see what they advise.
The insurance companies have their own attorneys, who don't worry about who's feet they step on, or wallets they lighten as they're only concern is not losing money by making payouts on a claim for which there is clearly a party that can and should be held accountable for the incident which brought forth the claim
Also, you may be having trouble getting answers and/or explanations concerning the normal procedures followed in this type of situation, because according to you're post, you are not involved in this matter. Aside from being a concerned neighbor and possibly afraid the dogs could harm you or you're family, you have no claim or legal right to receive any reply or explanation in this matter. It is between you're neighbor, the dog owner and the department of animal control.
If you're neighbor gets his insurance company involved and they send out an investigator and/or have their legal department contact the involved parties, he will probably see a whole new response to the matter as it will not be something that can be so easily swept under the carpet. (If that is what is happening) The insurance company will get to the truth and all the involved parties should be aware of this. As such, it would be quite foolish for them to play any games changing records and/or deleting prior reports which were written up on these animals.
Have you're neighbor check with his insurance company to see what they advise.
Thank you,
It was 70 year old brother-in-law. I have been with him on almost all discussions about this with the dog control officer and the county legal council. They (dog control and legal council)work together all of the time and are now covering for each other. They are making statements that the victim said, that clearly were never said. They have no time recorded or signatures, when (not even what month) these statements were made. These statements have been their reason for "sweeping this all under the rug". Today's project will be if the district attorney has any jurisdiction over this. Also, I agree that the insurance company should have some say, but apparently there is not enough money involved for them to care. The insurance company passed most of the costs onto Medicare.
It was 70 year old brother-in-law. I have been with him on almost all discussions about this with the dog control officer and the county legal council. They (dog control and legal council)work together all of the time and are now covering for each other. They are making statements that the victim said, that clearly were never said. They have no time recorded or signatures, when (not even what month) these statements were made. These statements have been their reason for "sweeping this all under the rug". Today's project will be if the district attorney has any jurisdiction over this. Also, I agree that the insurance company should have some say, but apparently there is not enough money involved for them to care. The insurance company passed most of the costs onto Medicare.
I'd try the state bar for the referral
http://www.osbar.org/
also, check the county ordinances on animal control and put in a complaint about the enforcement not being carried out.
http://www.osbar.org/
also, check the county ordinances on animal control and put in a complaint about the enforcement not being carried out.
cepe10,
I have the 25 page "County Dog Control Ordinance 692". It is clearly defined about procedures and citations. The problem is that the dog control officer changed the citation to a warning three months after writing the citation (which apparently, she can do). We are trying to get a meeting with the Sheriff to find out if this is "normal" or acceptable.
As far as state bar recommendations, the first five refused to get involved against another attorney. Perhaps, there is not enough money involved.
I have the 25 page "County Dog Control Ordinance 692". It is clearly defined about procedures and citations. The problem is that the dog control officer changed the citation to a warning three months after writing the citation (which apparently, she can do). We are trying to get a meeting with the Sheriff to find out if this is "normal" or acceptable.
As far as state bar recommendations, the first five refused to get involved against another attorney. Perhaps, there is not enough money involved.
I was attacked by two german shepard while I was running in washington state and ended up with a 10K settlement with the insurance company. When the sheriff's deputy served the party with the court notice he was attacked as well and had to mace the dogs which ended up being quit good for my case against the vicious dog owner.
For me it was more of a matter of principal - a small child would not have survived the attack. You should keep trying with the refferals - it seems really unethical for the them not to be able to provide a refferal on this...
tarheel247
Member
any updates on this case?
Great news! Finally had a meeting with County Sheriff, Dog Control officer and a Sheriff Capt. who headed dog control office.
The Sheriff admitted that mistakes were made and they would make it right. We were given the choice of reinstating the citation and fines, or get full support from the sheriffs department in a law suit. Our main concern was that justice be done, rather than a law suit for money. To start, we have asked that the citation and fines be reinstated.
The dog control officer did admit to sitting on the citation for 3 months and then changing it to a warning without consulting the victim. Sheriff after hearing all about the attack said several times that he would not have dismissed the citation. There might still be more to the story in the future.
The Sheriff admitted that mistakes were made and they would make it right. We were given the choice of reinstating the citation and fines, or get full support from the sheriffs department in a law suit. Our main concern was that justice be done, rather than a law suit for money. To start, we have asked that the citation and fines be reinstated.
The dog control officer did admit to sitting on the citation for 3 months and then changing it to a warning without consulting the victim. Sheriff after hearing all about the attack said several times that he would not have dismissed the citation. There might still be more to the story in the future.
Happy Trails
Senior Member
You wouldn't need an attorney if you sued him in small claims court.
http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1061.htm
However, the limit is $5000.
http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1061.htm
However, the limit is $5000.
Thank you for the link for small claims court. We still wonder what to sue for. Brother-in-law was not employed (retired and 70 yrs. old) , so no wages were lost. Did go to hospital and his own insurance company paid medical expenses. It was a traumatic experience that is still fresh in his mind after 6 months, but don't think anything permanent. I don't think pain and suffering are acceptable claims in small claims court. Any advice would be appreciated if this route is taken. Most of the reason to sue this person is because this was not the first time the dogs have gone after someone. He showed no remorse or apology, and didn't even help after the attack.
Happy Trails
Senior Member
Sue for the medical expenses and pain and suffering. If you are awarded the medical expenses he would need to reimburse the insurance company.
Go to the site below and it will give you a general overview.
If it can be documented on how many problems these dogs have caused - he should try to sue for punitive damages.
http://printe.injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/personal-injury-a-z/dog-bite.html
seniorjudge
Senior Member
The reason no other lawyer would take your case is money, not professional courtesy.
The case is just too small for a lawyer to take, no matter who the defendant is.
Lawyers are suing each other left and right for malpractice, so I doubt that a dog bite case would be treated any differently.