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

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