The Defendant’s Injury

Reportedly, the plaintiff, a mailman, offered to cover a route for one of his coworkers. When the plaintiff was delivering mail to the defendant’s house, the defendant’s dog approached him. He attempted to give the dog a treat, but the dog attacked him. He was eventually able to free himself from the dog, at which point the defendant came out of his house to inquire if the dog had bitten him.

Allegedly, the plaintiff submitted a workers’ compensation claim seeking benefits for a wrist injury he sustained in the attack. He subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant as well, seeking damages under the dog bite statute. The plaintiff requested that the court allow him to introduce evidence of the workers’ compensation benefits he received following the incident at trial. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s request, arguing that that jury would interpret the evidence as proof of the defendant’s fault and the plaintiff’s damages. The plaintiff’s motion was granted, and the jury ultimately found for the plaintiff. The defendant subsequently appealed. Evidence of Payments from Other Sources

The only issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in permitting the plaintiff to present evidence of his workers’ compensation claim. The appellate court explained that proof of payments from a collateral source is generally omitted from evidence because it could lead juries to believe that the plaintiff is seeking a double recovery or that their claim is frivolous.

Despite the fact that the opposite scenario transpired in this case, the appellate court determined that the trial court admitted such evidence in error. In other words, it found that the evidence indicated to the jury that a third party had determined that the defendant was accountable for the plaintiff’s injuries. However, the limiting instructions the judge provided to the jury were determined to reduce the risk of prejudice. As a result, the verdict was upheld.

Speak to an Experienced Massachusetts Attorney

Dog attacks can cause significant injuries, and dog owners will typically be deemed strictly liable for damages their pets cause. If you were hurt in a dog attack, you may be owed compensation, and you should speak to an attorney. The experienced lawyers of The Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, can advise you of your potential claims and help you to seek a favorable outcome. You can contact us through our online form or by calling us at 888-262-6664 to set up a meeting.

Of course, not every encounter between humans and animals will result in a finding of negligence against the owner of the dog or other animal in a Cape Cod personal injury lawsuit. It all depends upon the particular encounter and whether the pet owner’s negligence contributed to harm to the plaintiff.

In cases in which an animal’s owner is held liable for a person’s injuries from a bite or other harm, the injured individual may be entitled to substantial money damages. This can include medical expenses, lost earnings, and compensation for pain and suffering, among other things.

Facts of the Case

In a recent negligence case considered on appeal by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the plaintiff was a man who was injured when his dog was allegedly attacked by another dog (probably a pit bull mix). The dog was owned by a tenant of the defendant landlord. At the time of the altercation between the two animals, the plaintiff’s dog was on a leash and was running beside him as he bicycled down the street in front of the defendant’s property. The tenant’s dog was unleashed and ran out towards the plaintiff’s dog. The dogs began to fight, which in turn caused the plaintiff (who was still holding his own dog’s leash) to fall from his bike and be injured.

The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing before the trial court that he had no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from harm from a dog that he (the defendant) did not own. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment for the defendant. Phrasing the issue was “whether a landowner has a legal duty to protect passers-by from a dog kept on the landowner’s property, but owned by the landowner’s tenant,” the appellate tribunal agreed with the lower court that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Viewing the granting of summary judgment de novo as is appropriate under Massachusetts law, the reviewing court observed that the defendant was only entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of his claim if the matter proceeded to a trial.

Here, the court found that the risk of harm to a passer-by such as the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant, thus negating one of the essential elements for a negligence claim. Rather, in the court’s opinion, the obligation was on the dog’s owner – rather than the defendant landlord – to handle the animal responsibly.

Schedule an Appointment with a Negligence Attorney in Cape Cod

If you, your spouse, or your child has been injured by an animal that belonged to someone else and you need to talk to an experienced dog bite attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III at 888-262-6664. We represent clients throughout the Cape Cod area, including Hyannis, Plymouth, and the surrounding area. Please be mindful that there is a limited amount of time for filing a negligence claim against a dog owner or landowner, so it is important to take prompt legal action. There is no charge for the initial consultation with us, and many cases are accepted on a contingency fee basis: we collect our fee when your case is settled (rather than expecting payment upfront).

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent (unreported) case was a man who was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant. Seeking monetary compensation for serious injuries he allegedly received in the incident, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant pursuant to Massachusetts General Law ch. 140, § 155. In his suit, the plaintiff stated claims for both negligence and strict liability, alleging that, at the time that he was bitten, he was not “teasing, tormenting, or abusing” the dog but, rather, had merely leaned down to pet the animal. The defendant’s unsigned answers to interrogatories asserted that the plaintiff had awoken the dog from sleep, stepped on its tail, and swung a heavy medallion at the dog.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. The defendant sought reconsideration, but the trial court did not change its earlier ruling in the plaintiff’s favor. The defendant appealed.

Disposition of the Issues

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed. Beginning its discussion of the issues with the question of jurisdiction, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff’s position was that the defendant’s appeal was untimely because it was made well beyond 30 days after the trial court had entered summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability. Insomuch as the defendant’s notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the trial court’s final judgment – not the judgment on liability – the court found that it had appellate jurisdiction over the case. With regard to the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to consider three filings which allegedly did not comply with Rule 9A, the reviewing court found no error, noting that unsigned interrogatory answers were not admissible as evidence under Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

The parties also disagreed as to whether it was appropriate for the lower tribunal to deny a motion to reconsider made by the defendant. In ruling that the lower court had ruled appropriately on this issue, the court pointed out that the motion to reconsider was not made until five months after the partial summary judgment order on liability and was not supported by any documentation explaining the delay.

To Contact a Injury Lawyer

If you have been the victim of a dog bite, you need to talk to a lawyer about filing a claim against the animal’s owner. To schedule a free consultation with a Cape Cod dog bite injury attorney, call the Law Offices of John C. Manoog III, at 888-262-6664. Please be mindful that there is a time limit on filing such claims, so please seek legal counsel as soon as possible; otherwise, you claim made be denied on statute of limitations grounds.

Just as human officers can occasionally make mistakes, so, too, can K-9 officers. When this happens, should an innocent person who is injured by the dog’s error have the right to sue the government for damages?

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who was bitten by a police dog in 2011. The dog’s handler had been in pursuit of the suspect for quite some time, having engaged in a high-speed motor vehicle chase from Boston to West Bridgewater. After the suspect crashed his vehicle and began running through a public parking lot, the handler (a state trooper) released the dog to apprehend the suspect. Unfortunately, both the handler and the dog lost sight of the actual suspect, and the dog mistakenly attacked the plaintiff instead.

The plaintiff filed suit against the Massachusetts State Police (the handler’s employer), seeking to recover compensation for his injuries under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258. According to the plaintiff, the officer’s release of the animal in a public space created a foreseeable and substantial risk of harm to an innocent bystander. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant based on the ground of sovereign immunity, specifically §§ 10(b) and (j) of the Act. The plaintiff appealed.

Decision of the Massachusetts Appeals Court

The appeals court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant. The court first noted that, in this particular case, the dog and the handler worked together as a team, and the dog did exactly what the handler commanded him to do. The court then reiterated prior case law to the effect that State Police canine handlers have at least some discretion with regard to deciding appropriate tactical measures that should be taken with regard to the use of a K-9 officer.

Under Massachusetts law, the government is protected from liability in cases in which a discretionary activity was of the “planning or policy-making type” but not when the conduct at issue involves the “implementation” of government policy. Here, the court found that – at least at the summary judgment stage – it could not be said that the handler’s commanding the dog to apprehend a criminal suspect involved the “planning or policy-making type” of discretion.

Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity on the ground that the officer’s conduct was not the “original cause” of creating the harmful condition that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. When the trooper made the decision to release the police dog in a “moderate to heavily occupied parking lot” to attack the suspect, he created the harmful condition that led to the plaintiff’s injury.

Get Advice from an Experienced Cape Cod Injury Lawyer

Dog bites can result in serious injuries, and those who are bitten or attacked due to the negligence of a property owner or, as in this case, an allegedly careless professional handler, have the right to seek fair compensation. At the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, our experienced Cape Cod dog bite attorneys can help you determine whether you have a viable personal injury claim. For a free consultation, call us at 888-262-6664 and schedule an appointment in either our Hyannis or Plymouth offices.

Related Blog Posts Massachusetts Court Rules that Homeowners Insurance Company Was Obligated to Defend Dog Bite Claim, Despite Alleged Misrepresentation About Bite History Community in Massachusetts Living in Fear of Pit Bull Attacks

Once the agreement is made, the insured has the right to demand that the insurance company defend him or her against any claims that are covered under the policy and pay any judgments (up to the policy limits) resulting from such claims.

A recent case explored the issue of whether a particular misrepresentation by the insureds during the application process was sufficient for the insurance company to later void the policy and deny coverage of a claim that would otherwise be covered.

Facts of the Case

In a recently decided Massachusetts case, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured in a 2011 incident in which the defendant homeowners’ American Bulldog attacked her two Yorkshire Terriers while she was walking on a public street near the defendants’ residence. As a result of the altercation, the plaintiff suffered a broken arm, a cut on her face, and numerous scrapes on her extremities.

In 2013, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging both negligence and strict liability claims against the homeowners and asserting a claim against the insurance company for unfair claim settlement practices, due to its denial of the plaintiff’s claim against the homeowners. The insurance company sought a declaration that the liability policy issued to the homeowners was void and did not afford coverage.

The coverage issue proceeded to a bench trial, at which the court found in the insurance company’s favor.

Decision of the Appellate Court

The Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and entered a new judgment to the effect that the insurance company was contractually obligated to provide coverage for the plaintiff’s claim against the homeowners. With regard to the homeowners’ negative answer to a question concerning “breed and bite history” – when, in fact, the dog in question had bitten two other dogs prior to the application – the court noted that the trial court judge had interpreted that ambiguous language to mean “biting anything or anybody,” but a more reasonable interpretation of the language was “biting history for humans only.” Since the homeowners answered that question honestly, there was no misrepresentation as to the dog’s biting history.

As to the other question (which the court also found to be ambiguous) inquiring about the “loss history” associated with the dog, the court noted that the homeowner himself paid a $200 veterinary bill to the owner of another animal that his dog had bitten. However, given that this payment was only a small fraction of the homeowners’ personal liability policy limit, it was reasonable for the homeowner to not consider this a “loss for an insurance company.”

Talk to a Lawyer About Holding a Cape Cod Homeowner Liable for a Dog Bite

The results-driven Cape Cod personal injury attorney at the Law Offices of John C. Manoog, III, in Hyannis and Plymouth can help if you or a family member has been seriously injured by a dog bite. For a free case evaluation, call us at 888-262-6664 and schedule an appointment to discuss your case. We accept most personal injury cases on a contingency fee contract, so you will not have to pay a legal fee up front to get your case started.

Related Blog Posts: Homeowner’s Insurance Policy Could Limit Animal Liability Coverage for Dog Bite Claims Tips for Cape Cod Residents and Visitors: How To Avoid a Dog Bite

Dog bites can cause any number of injuries from the less serious nip to a terrifying bite to the face, head or neck. If you have been the victim of a dog bite, you will most likely be entitled to some form of compensation for your pain and suffering. A local personal injury attorney with experience handling dog bite cases can help you to maximize your recovery.

According to the National Humane Education Society, there are ways to avoid being the victim of a dog bite. Interestingly enough, the organization suggests that people start by being “polite” and respecting the dog’s personal space. While adults can easily manage to behave accordingly in the company of pets, children, especially young kids, may not do so. Often, a child will run up to a dog, on a leash or not, and try to pet the dog. Parents and other adults are encouraged to heed this advice (and teach their children to so as well) and treat dogs with a particular level of respect.

The Humane Society also suggests that people avoid approaching an unfamiliar dog, especially one who is confined behind a fence, tied up or in a car. And when you do attempt to pet a dog, even your own pet, make sure that they have an opportunity to see and sniff you beforehand. When dogs are chewing on a toy, sleeping or with their puppies, it is suggested that you do not bother them. If you come in contact with an unfamiliar dog, realize that they may consider you to be a threat, possibly some kind of intruder.

Another piece of advice offered by the Humane Society is to place a good distance of space between you and the dog, and in doing so, you should assess the situation and look for signs that the dog may attack or bite. If you think a dog is about to attack, here are some additional recommendations the organization provides: 1) resist the urge to scream and run away; 2) stay motionless, with your hands at your sides, and be sure to avoid eye contact with the dog; 3) when the dog loses interest in you, slowly back away until he is out of sight (do not turn and run away); 4) if the dog does attack, give him your purse, jacket, bicycle, or any item that you can put between you and the dog.

In Massachusetts, owners or those responsible for a dog are usually held strictly liable for any injuries caused by their dog. A victim is entitled to sue that person for extensive damages. If a dog bit you, your child or another relative, contact a local dog bite attorney as soon as possible.

Local attorney, John C. Manoog III, has extensive experience helping parties in dog bite cases in Cape Cod. For a free initial consultation, call the office at 888-262-6664 or reach us by email. There is always someone available to talk to you about your case.

Related Blog Posts: Dog Bites May Be The Result of Pet Anxiety Number of Dog Bite Claims Fluctuates, While Value of Claims Increases

The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 70 million dogs living in U.S. households. The organization further reports that millions of people — most of them children — are bitten by dogs each year. What may be surprising to many readers is that the majority of these bites, if not all, are considered to be preventable. According to one article, dog bite prevention begins with the understanding that dogs do not bite people “out of the blue” or for no apparent reason. This article suggests that dog bites occur when the pet is anxious about a situation that is taking place.

When children are bitten, it can be particularly upsetting because the bite is usually on the child’s head, face or neck – vulnerable and sensitive parts of the body. It is even more disturbing when the biter is the family pet. But this article suggests that families can take notice of warning signs that may indicate when the pet is feeling anxious, leading it to protect or defend itself by biting. Some of these signs include the following: barking or whining, lip licking or tongue flicking, crouching or tucking in tail, turning head or entire body away from a situation, tightly closing mouth, yawning, ears pinned back to head, body is still or in a “freeze,” and something referred to as a “half moon eye,” which happens when the whites of a dog’s eyes are exposed.

Parents or other adults should always supervise a child around a dog. The pet needs space and an alternative location, such as a crate, to retreat to for quiet time away from children. And while children may think it is fun to play with a dog by grabbing its toys and tossing them around as they would their own toys, dogs do not understand that children are simply playing. They may feel threatened and become protective and defensive. It is also a good idea to always leave dogs alone when they are eating, chewing on a toy or sleeping.

It is important to take these prevention tips seriously. Getting bitten by a dog can have lasting effects on a child throughout adolescence and into adulthood. There is no real defense in Massachusetts when a dog bites someone. The basic rule of law is that the dog’s owner is responsible. Even in cases where someone is injured in trying to escape a threatening dog, the owner can be held responsible for any injuries that occur. If a dog bit your child, contact a local injury attorney who specializes in handling dog bite cases.

Local attorney, John C. Manoog III, has extensive experience helping parties in dog bite cases in Cape Cod. For a free initial consultation, call the office at 888-262-6664 or reach us by email. There is always someone available to talk to you about your case.

Related Blog Posts: Number of Dog Bite Claims Fluctuates, While Value of Claims Increases Cape Cod Community Sees Increase in Dog Bite Cases Massachusetts Dog Bite Attack: 400 Stitches, Dog Put Down

The report of the attack is terrifying. A 12-year-old friend of the victim called 9-1-1 while the two Rottweilers, both guard dogs, were mauling the victim. The two boys had been visiting the dogs for months and petting them through the fence without incident. On the day of the attack, the older boy climbed over the fence, and the animals set upon him after he fiddled with his cell phone.

The police officer who saved the boy acted courageously, and the boy’s mother credits the officer with saving her son’s life. Ironically, he was previously the target of an investigation concerning his work ethic, and it appears that whatever issue existed has now fallen firmly by the wayside. While these guard dogs were contained on their property when the attack occurred, they were both euthanized voluntarily after the horrific tragedy.

Massachusetts authorities have indicated the dog owner apparently did not comply with a state law requiring that guard dogs be registered with the local fire department. Further, there were suggestions that the boys had previously scaled the fence to visit the dogs without incident, though that was not independently confirmed. It was not reported whether there were any warning signs concerning the guard dogs.

Massachusetts is what is known as a strict liability state when it comes to dog bite injuries. Nevertheless, legal issues of trespass may come into play if the parents of the boy intend to pursue a personal injury claim for reimbursement of monetary damages sustained as a result of the animal attack. When an individual suffers serious injury from a dog bite, it may make good sense to gain an understanding of their legal rights under the law, based upon a careful review of all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.

Source: Revere Journal, “Boy, 14, Mauled by Two Guard Dogs,” Seth Daniel, March 28, 2013

After the terrifying incident, the neighbors were required to keep the dog inside their home while the selectmen acted on the mother’s complaint. The local animal control officer testified during formal proceedings that the animal would likely bite another time and that such an attack could be even more severe. The selectmen ultimately determined the animal was dangerous and ordered it to be euthanized. The owners were given 10 days to appeal the ruling.

During the 10-day period, the dog attacked and bit a 16-year-old occupant of the owner’s home. She required hospitalization, though she was not believed to be in danger of losing her life. The dog, on the other hand, was surrendered to the local animal control authority and was reportedly put to sleep two days later. There was no further information disclosed on the updated medical conditions of the boy or teenage girl.

As we have noted, there is no real defense to a dog bite attack. Under Massachusetts law, the owner is responsible. The damages are often substantial, owing to the potential for scar tissue, nerve damage and ongoing psychological problems. It was not reported whether the family of the boy intends to pursue claims for personal injury against the dog’s owner. As relieved as they may be that the animal cannot hurt others, their continued focus is likely on the boy’s recovery from his injuries and any emotional issues that may linger.

Source: opposingviews.com, “‘Death Row’ Dog, Milo, Attacks Teenager after Mauling 6-Year-Old Child in January,” Denise A. Justin, March 5, 2013

The incident occurred in the Boston suburb of Needham, and the town’s Animal Control Officer responded to the scene. Further details of the attack were not reported. However, the owner of the dog was said to have received a citation because the dog was not muzzled in accordance with local law.

Massachusetts is known as a strict liability state when it comes to dog bite attacks. Nevertheless, the laws regarding strict liability vary from state to state. In addition to state laws, local jurisdictions often have laws that apply within its borders.

As the man recovers from the dog bite injuries, he may elect to review his rights under relevant laws regarding a claim for personal injuries. Medical bills, including those for any anticipated care in the future, may be included in a demand for reimbursement. Further, if any scarring results from the injuries sustained, a monetary claim for any disfigurement as well as for pain and suffering occasioned by the attack may be appropriate. Each case is unique, and the best first step is to gain an understanding of the local and state laws involved in order to assess what legal steps may be pursued if the victim chooses to do so.

Source: Wicked Local Needham, “Needham Police: Dog bites man,” Jan. 21, 2013

Police at the scene ultimately killed one of the dogs and captured the other. Both were thought to be a pit bull mix, though that fact was not confirmed. The dog that was shot by police was said to have been a male dog and was put down after he continued to be aggressive. It was considered too dangerous to further attempt to obtain the animal.

The other dog was a female who was captured and turned over to an animal shelter. The dogs’ owner was not home at the time of the incident. Police were said to be continuing their investigation, and no decision had been made about filing criminal charges.

Massachusetts is deemed a strict liability state when it comes to dog bite attacks (General Laws of Massachusetts, Chapter 140, Section 155). Those who have been victimized have legal remedies to pursue monetary damages occasioned by such an attack. Nevertheless, there are a number of elements to the law to be considered, and those seeking relief may benefit from investigating the full extent of the statute and potential remedies available. Those who are injured may take comfort in knowing there is help available to rectify the financial circumstances through legal action in our state civil court system, regardless of any action taken by authorities against the dog owner.

Source: Boston Globe, “Dalton police kill dog after attack on man,” Oct. 12, 2012

In the Cape Cod community of Dennis there were nine dog bite reports in June alone. Four more were logged in July. A prior ACO said that, in her many years on the job, she had never before seen as many as nine reported dog bite cases in one month. It is reported that there are over 1800 licensed dogs in Dennis alone.

The current Dennis ACO said that at least some of the recent dog bite attacks could have been prevented. She reiterated that no one should approach a strange dog, even those that appear friendly. One should not make the assumption that it is okay to touch a dog. Further, owners are cautioned to keep their dogs on a leash in well populated areas unless the animal is voice trained.

The apparent increase in dog bite attacks in this Cape Cod town begs the question: what do you do if you have been bitten? Clearly, the first order of business is to seek medical attention, recognizing that the medical provider will likely report the incident to the local ACO. Those who are seriously injured have options under Massachusetts law. Animal bites are frightening, and our courts are available to those who have suffered injury and seek reimbursement based on claims of negligence that caused or contributed to any damages sustained.

Source: Wicked Local Website/Dennis, “In Dennis, dog bites are on the rise,” Nicole Muller, Aug. 10, 2012

The family has lived in the town for more than a year and a half and has displayed Beware of Dog signs in their backyard. While the selectmen consider the matter, the family has been ordered to muzzle the dog, have the animal examined at the Lowell Humane Society and post more Beware of Dog signs in the front of their home.

The first attack occurred on May 1 when a neighbor came by for an arranged visit. The dog owner claims she was not able to get the animal leashed in time, and the dog bit the visitor on the hand, requiring seven stitches to close the wound. The second attack happened on June 12 as a couple, who had been hired by the homeowners to trim trees on the property outside a fenced area for the dog, was finishing their work. The homeowner let the dog outside, apparently thinking the workers had left. Instead, the dog attacked the female worker, and she received extensive tissue damage on her forearm as a result of the dog bite.

The town selectmen adjourned their hearing concerning the 70-pound dog until July 16. An animal control officer has already reported to them that a public safety issue exists. She has formally requested that the selectmen order the dog removed or disposed from the community.

As Chelmsford struggles with the appropriate measures to take to ensure the safety of its citizens, the two people injured must cope with recovering from their wounds. There is perhaps nothing much more frightening than being overpowered in a dog bite attack, especially an unprovoked one. Each injured victim in this instance likely has the option to turn to Massachusetts courts to seek monetary relief to reimburse them for their medical expenses and other damages, including pain and suffering occasioned by the disturbing incidents.

Source: Wicked Local Chelmsford, “Chelmsford selectmen considering dog’s future,” Molly Loughman, June 26, 2012