Black Labrador Retriever portrait
Posted on 09/29/2010 9:35:16 AM PDT by JoeProBono
A woman says she suffered permanent damage to her right hand and arm after she was attacked by a Black Labrador named Tank.
Trena Wells filed a lawsuit on Sept. 14 in Madison County Circuit Court against Matthew and Amy Cooper of Moro.
Wells says she was a guest in the Coopers' home at 515 West Moro Dr. when the couples' Labrador retriever Tank escaped from the back yard and ran onto Moro Drive. The dog was struck around 3:30 p.m. by a white truck. Wells says the dog then ran back into the Cooper's home and attacked and bit her.
In Wells' suit, she claims the Cooper's should have known about and warned her of the dog's vicious nature. She claims they were negligent in not restraining, training, removing or preventing the dog from biting her.
In an additional count of the suit, Wells blames the Coopers for not following an Illinois statute that makes the owners of an animal responsible for damages when a lawful visitor who is acting peacefully is injured by the animal.
Wells also claims the Coopers were negligent in allowing their dog access to their property in a way that made their home unsafe.
Wells says she suffered severe, permanent damage to her right hand, thumb and right arm. She says she incurred medical expenses of $21,000, and suffered emotional distress and depression because of the incident.
She also claims lost wages.
In her complaint, Wells seeks a judgment of more than $50,000, plus costs on all four counts.
Zane T. Cagle of the Cagle Law Firm will be representing her.
Madison County Circuit Court case number: 10-L-952.
Black Labrador Retriever portrait
So she expected that the dog training would include the dog being traumatized by being hit by a car in the street?
I cant believe she is asking for so little.
She’ll win.
99% of the time the owner of a dog is responsible for injuries caused by it. Even thought the laws don’t generally say it, dog bites are essentially covered by strict liability concepts.
Dog owners should do a minimum prison term any time a dog (unprovoked) injures a human.
she tried to help an injured dog and it bit her
you better be pretty familiar when approaching a wounded dog
been there done that
Seems like a classic case of "intervening cause". Not to mention lack of foreseeability.
Dog bites are certainly not strict liability around here (Georgia). Standard negligence rules apply, and generally if there was no prior indication that the dog had a propensity to bite, no liability.
The Illinois statute may not apply here, depends on how it's been construed, but GA has a similar statute and it has been held not to impose strict liability.
I doubt that the dog returned inside and attacked her. More likely, when the dog came in/was brought in, she rushed to “help”, and apparently she did not know that it is a BAD idea to approach an injured, strange dog—it is more likely to bite you than its owner when in pain and frightened.
I suspect that the owners will be charged with failure to secure their labrador properly; I don’t know if the woman will be awarded any money for the bite. Her suit may be dismissed.
The dog was provoked. Injured, traumatized animals are in pain and panicked they have two reactions to this, flight or fight. Any one with a soupcon of common sense knows that you do not approach an injured animal unless you have training in how to handle them. I doubt very seriously she was outright attacked. I bet she tried to approach the dog and it bit her because it was traumatized.
Unless she is also suing the driver of the car that hit the dog, the case should be thrown out of court.
I am pretty sure the general trend is to find against the owner.
I understand about “forseeability” but that gets weighed against negligence for the dog escaping which began the chain of events.
Sadly, we almost never find out how these cases turn out.
My money is on the complainant.
“Dog owners should do a minimum prison term any time a dog (unprovoked) injures a human.”
Having owned dogs of various breeds for most of my 50 years, I can tell you that there is no breed I can think of that is LESS likely to attack unprovoked than a Labrador Retriever. We used to laugh that ours would help a burglar carry things out of the house rather than attack.
However, after reading this, it does seem that the dog was reacting in some way to being hit by the car. Why it chose to react against this person is unclear. Did she rush to the dog to try to help (the dog could have seen this as a threat)? Was she just sitting there quietly? Did she try to pet the dog and hit an injury, unknowingly hurting the dog? (Seems possible, considering the injuries were to her hand and arm). Not enough details to determine what actually happened that day.
Unworkable. The reality is that you can personally attack just about anybody at random and even when convicted most likely avoid jail time, let alone prison.
It's also worth noting, that most people, myself included see a difference between owing a vicious dog that eventually hurts someone, and owning a dog that has showed no signs of aggression and ends up attacking someone. There is definitely a different degree of culpability there.
When I was a toddler, we owned a bulldog (one of the 12 pound ones, not a pit) who attacked one of my playmates. My parents immediately had the dog put down and everyone was happy with the resolution. But, common sense ruled back then...not so much these days.
“Dog owners should do a minimum prison term any time a dog (unprovoked) injures a human.”
That’s the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve read in a long time.
“Seems like a classic case of “intervening cause”. Not to mention lack of foreseeability.”
Regardless of the actions by the victim the owners are liable as it can be argued that if the dog hadn’t been able to escape the yard, the injury would not have happened.
Even if it were foreseeable that the dog if loose in the yard might be hit by a car, you've got two obvious breaks in the chain: (1) you could foresee that the dog might be killed or hurt in the street, but to rush back into the house? (2) odds are the woman tried to assist the dog and got bitten. The same thing happened to a friend of mine whose own dog (a Cockerpoo) was run over. She ran to help him and he bit her.
Like all these negligence cases, a lot will depend on the facts that develop when we get beyond the complaint stage.
interesting. i’m seeing a lot of comments of “its a lab, it MUST be the victim’s fault.”
we all know full well if it had been a pit, these same posters would be calling for not only having the dog put down, but the owners as well.
The dog owner is toast. He is responsible for off leash injury to the dog, and dog bites of guests both as the dog owner and property owner.
More common example: you leave your car keys where somebody unauthorized gets at them (in the console, or on the floor mat, or in a jacket pocket) and steals your car. They run over somebody, or use your car in a robbery and somebody gets hurt.
Generally no liability, because the criminal acts of the thief constitute intervening cause. About the only exception is if you knew your car was likely to be stolen (you have a criminal in your household and he knew where the keys were, or it's a very high crime area).
Is it an expressly strict liability statute? If not, this one is going to provide some lawyer income, and the outcome is by no means certain.
The article does NOT say she tried to help the dog, nor does it say she tried to approach the dog. Where did you get that info?
It sounds like an unfortunate series of events, but the owners of the dog are liable, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.