Dog Bite Law |
||
| Liability for Non-Bite Injuries | ||
| A dog can injure a person not only by biting, but by other means. | ||
|
|
|
||||||||
OverviewDogs can injure persons a number of ways, not just by biting. A dog can bite, scratch, trip, knock down, or frighten a person, causing injuries. The general rule is that liability for the actions of the dog is based on knowledge on the part of the owner, harbor or keeper that the dog is vicious or has a dangerous propensity. Ironically, therefore, the rule of liability for non-bites is actually the one bite rule itself, which does not require an actual bite as a condition for liability. See The One Bite Rule. Restatement of Torts (Second), section 302(b), states that a person is chargeable with negligence if a third party is exposed to unreasonable risk of harm by the foreseeable action of the person's animal. Moreover, comment d of that section says that a reasonable person is required to know the habits and propensities of animals, and, insofar as that knowledge would lead him to identify as customary or normal a particularly dangerous action on the part of an animal, he is required to anticipate that act and provide against it. Thus, many cases throughout the country hold that tripping, jumping upon, and frightening a person results in liability if the owner, harborer or keeper was aware of that particular propensity of the dog. Additionally, the dog bite statutes of a number of states are not actually limited to bites but also include any injuries. When reviewing statutes, determine whether they use the word "bite." A statute that uses the word "injure" or something similar covers not only bites but also non-bite injuries. One of the most interesting non-bite injuries is referred to as "dog fright." A dog fright case is one in which the behavior of the dog causes a reasonable person to take defensive action which results in that person's injury. An example is Farrior v. Payton, 57 Haw. 620, 562 P.2d 779 (1977). In that case, the owners of a German Shepherd dog knew that it would run and bark at strangers as if it were going to attack them. The plaintiffs, who were unwittingly trespassing on the dog owners' property, tried to escape the dog, fell off a rock wall, and were injured. The supreme court held that the facts might support a verdict for the plaintiffs based upon the negligence of the dog owners. Another example is Machacado v. City of N.Y., 80 Misc.2d 889, 365 N.Y.S.2d 974 (1975). In that case, the defendant's dog, which was kept behind a fence adjacent to the public sidewalk, was known to bark furiously and hurl itself against the fence in an effort to attack pedestrians. The plaintiff made a sudden move to escape which resulted in injury. The supreme court held that the facts could amount to negligence. A third example is Henkel v. Jordan, 7 Kan. App. 2d 561, 644 P.2d 1348 (Kan.App.1982). In that case, the issue was whether the defendants could properly be held liable for personal injuries suffered by a plaintiff when, frightened by defendant's "bouncy, pesky, yappy little dog," he lost control of and fell from a bicycle. The dog owners had been put on notice by numerous individuals that the dog had frightened people who passed along the street. The court held that the facts could support a finding of negligence. For further reading, attorneys might be interested in LIABILITY OF DOG OWNER FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED BY PERSON FRIGHTENED BY DOG (30 A.L.R.4th 986).
|
|
