Dog Bite Law Blog

What a Dog Bite Lawyer Has to Do At the Beginning of a Case

Details: Created on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 18:42

In the past week, three dog bite victims have asked me to represent them after their original attorneys dropped their cases. All three incidents had the same feature: a dog owner with no insurance.

There are easy dog bite cases, and there are hard ones. The factors that can make a dog bite case a hard one may be things that a lawyer has never faced, no matter how long he or she has been practicing in the field of bodily injury law, including:

A defendant that is the victim's aunt, uncle, grandmother, grandfather, best friend, or neighbor, who could be 100% in the victim's corner if approached correctly.
A victim who is 100% against filing a lawsuit versus any of the people mentioned in the prior paragraph.
A potential defendant that denies he has insurance.
Witnesses who are children.
The science of animal behavior, particularly the causes of canine aggression against human beings.
The particulars, conflicts and simultaneous interaction of four types of laws that usually are applicable in every dog bite case: municipal ordinances, County ordinances, state statutes, and case law (including the Restatement of Law of Torts).
"Dog court" hearings (i.e., administrative hearings or court proceedings focusing on the dangerousness of the dog and the irresponsibility of its owner or handler).
A wide range of expert witnesses, almost all of whom are self trained, and essentially fake.
Unique legal concepts, such as ownership of a dog, "harboring" a dog, "keeping" a dog, and provocation of a dog. Unusual legal concepts (not unique but unusual) like parental negligence in the supervision of a child, suits by children against parents, the standard exclusion for household residents in policies of homeowner insurance and renters insurance, the legal boilerplate that must be included and excluded from settlement documentation in order to ensure favorable tax treatment, and the paperwork and court presentation for the settlement of a minor's claim for bodily injuries.

All of the above topics are explored in detail on the Dog Bite Law website (www.dogbitelaw.com) and in the seminar-on-video, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case. The purpose of this blog post is to discuss the standard of care for rendering legal services to a dog bite victim at the beginning of the relationship. While there are many things that can go wrong with a dog bite case, the focus of this article is going to be on the two threshold requirements for successful claim: a legally liable defendant, and insurance coverage. In dog bite cases, finding these things can present an attorney with unusual hurdles.

If you are a dog bite victim, you should know about these things. As you will read, there are basic facts that you can help gather so that your attorney can proceed forward with your case. Knowing the tactics and strategies set forth in this post will also enable you to monitor your lawyer's efforts and evaluate whether he or she is the capable dog bite lawyer you thought you had retained.

The hypothetical case

Let us consider a common and seemingly easy, "slamdunk" factual scenario for dog bite case. An unmarried, 30-year-old woman visited the home of a guy that she was interested in. She rang the doorbell. The guy opened the door, gave her a hug, and welcomed her inside. She saw a dog, and asked whether it was safe for her to pet it. The guy and his male roommate said that the dog was friendly. She leaned over to pet it, and it sprang at her face without warning. The teeth of the dog caught her forehead, one nostril and her upper lip, producing substantial injuries which included permanent scars and lumps. The jurisdiction has a statute commonly called a "dog bite statute" which makes dog owners legally liable for all losses and damages inflicted by their dogs. The animal control department conducted an investigation which confirmed that the roommate was the owner of the dog.

Sounded like a great case. As it turned out, however, there were complications. The first thing that the attorney did was to sign up the client. Then he sent a letter to the dog owner, asking for insurance information. When the dog owner responded by saying that he did not have insurance and was merely renting the house, the lawyer found out the name of the owner of the residence and wrote to her, again asking for insurance information. A law firm that does coverage cases responded on behalf of the owner of the house and her liability insurer, denying liability and asserting that there was no coverage applicable to the tenant.

To prosecute or not to prosecute

The victim's attorney has taken the case pursuant to a contingency fee agreement. The contract requires him to not only render services but also advance the costs of prosecuting the civil claim. At this point the lawyer is thinking about dropping the case.

If the lawyer does not terminate the attorney retainer agreement, however, he is ethically and contractually required to pursue the client's interests. The standard of care for dog bite lawyer is fundamentally the same standard of care for any personal injury attorney, with some modifications arising from the unique aspects of a dog bite case.

So, what should the lawyer do at this point? The rest of this article is about the standard of care when there does not seem to be a viable defendant in a dog bite case (i.e., a person who is liable and has insurance, assets or prospects).

Steps that the dog bite victim's lawyer should take

The first thing to do is to start looking for other owners of the dog. There are no hard and fast rules as to who the owner of a dog is. If you want it to be the person who is named as the owner on the animal control report, then look no further. An insurance company, a judge and a jury will have no trouble agreeing with the records of the animal control department or humane society. But in a case like our hypothetical example, you have to look further because this particular animal control report has specified that an uninsured person is the owner. You have to find someone else who has sufficient insurance, assets or prospects.

Thankfully, there are a lot of humane behaviors that can make a person the owner of a dog: feed the dog, let it sleep your room, teach it tricks, give it commands, walk it every day, and things like that.

Similarly, a person might own a dog that he thought he had given away. Consider a dog that comes into a household during a marriage. Both the man and the woman are listed as the owner of the dog. Then they divorce or become separated. The man retains the dog (and thinks he owns it) while the woman has what you might call visitation rights; she takes the dog to the veterinarian, walks it and keeps it at her new apartment for a couple of days per month. Odds are that she and her ex-husband will both be considered to be the owners of the dog.

This other owner does not have to be a spouse. An ex-girlfriend may still be living with her parents or may have moved back into her parents house. Anybody living in a house (other than a renter) is covered by the homeowners or renters insurance that covers the house. That means that the ex-girlfriend is covered. Under those circumstances the dog bite lawyer's job would be to go after the ex-girlfriend as a co-owner so there will be coverage by virture of her parents' insurance.

If you cannot find an insured co-owner of the dog, the next step would be to conduct an investigation to see whether the landlord is responsible for the incident in some way. Sometimes the landlord can be held responsible because he had overlooked his own rules which forbade dogs on the premises. Sometimes you have a situation where the dog has bitten other people, and the landlord, the manager or the security company who worked for them knew it. In many states the landlord has an obligation to get rid of either a vicious dog or the tenant who owns it, and if the landlord fails to do so, he can be held liable.

If you cannot find a co-owner of the dog or a landlord that can be held liable, you have to look hard at the dog owner's assets and prospects. You need to find out not only whether he owns real property, cars and boats, but also what line of work he is in, what his job title is, and what it pays. In other words, you have to engage an investigator to do an asset check. Do not stop there, however. Find out who the dog owner's parents are, determine whether they are still alive, and form a judgment as to whether the dog owner is soon going to inherit a considerable sum of money from them.

Suppose none of that works? Well, you need to file a lawsuit. In many cases, you will be pleasantly surprised when you receive a copy of the Answer, signed by an insurance defense attorney. It turns out that many dog owners are so convinced that the dog had every right to bite the victim, or that the dog did not hurt the victim, that they conceal their insurance until the last possible moment. In other cases, you will receive a phone call from a privately retained attorney, who will be more than willing to confirm that the defendants have no insurance, and to begin negotiating a modest settlement. Finally, there will be those times when the defendant defaults, and you need to discuss with the dog bite victim whether to obtain a judgment based on the default. That is a very difficult decision to make. I do not believe that the standard of care is to take a default judgment in every case, especially after determining that the defendant lacks insurance, assets and prospects.

When an uninsured defendant appears with an attorney, you need to either enter into a settlement that makes sense given the defendant's financial condition, or continue to pursue the possibility that there is insurance. There are a lot of lawyers who do not understand all of the different types of insurance that can cover personal liabilities, and take the word of laypersons when they say that they do not believe they have coverage for dog bites. You not only have the homeowner policy and the renters policy, but also umbrella policies and excess liability policies. There are even some insurance brokers who, in selling a customer "full coverage" for motor vehicle accidents, combine a low-cost motor vehicle liability policy with an umbrella policy – and the latter covers dog bites. Consider using interrogatories or taking a deposition, not only to find out what the defendant believes his insurance to be, but also to learn the name of his insurance broker so that you can go to the source and ask questions there.

Convicted Canine Predators In Your Neighbor's Back Yard

Details: Created on Friday, 09 March 2012 23:18

When your neighbor's dog breaks through the boundary fence, charges and your backyard and viciously mauls your child, the last thing you expect, especially after a "dog court" conviction of the neighbor and his ferocious animal, is to see the same dog crashing against the same fence a week after judgment is entered. Without laws to prevent it, however, this horrific situation is exactly what many dog bite victims face even before the bandages are off. Here is an e-mail message from a mother whose son was mauled recently:

My son was attacked by a neighbor's dog in January 2011. He received 5 bites over his thighs, hip and buttocks. The pediatrician documented 17 teeth marks. The owners pled nolo contendere [no contest] in court and paid fines for 3 charges. They assured the solicitor that the dog would not be returned to the neighborhood. Our number 1 concern was to maintain a safe neighborhood for our children. With their removal of the dog, we felt we had this so did not pursue them civilly.

In September 2011 the dog was back. When they brought the dog back, I was absolutely shocked. Not just at their poor decision but that we had no legal recourse. If my son had been attacked by a person, I could get a restraining order. We have had to endure this dog for months now! The threat of the dog completely changed our lives. The owners have just this weekend removed it again and only because I called our commissioner. The dog had rammed its backyard fence so hard trying to attack the kids that it busted out 2 planks. After 2 investigators come out to talk to the owners, they finally decided to move the dog, at least for now.

I would love to see a law that prevented dogs that have attacked from being allowed to live next to their victims again. There is no law for this unless the dog attacks again! Another law that would be great, at a minimum, a law that owners of dogs that have attacked be required to inform victims when the dog is being returned home. The owners did not even to bother calling us to warn us that the dog was returning after being gone for several months. My son was yet again traumatized when he was playing outside and the dog charged the fence at him. If I had at least known they were bringing the dog back, I could have kept him on the other side of the neighborhood and warned him.

She suggests two laws: one preventing the dog from returning to the place where it gained access to the victim, and another requiring the dog's owner to provide notice if the dog is coming back. These would be great improvements to the dog laws of our cities and counties.

Fleeing the Scene of a Dog Attack Can Be a Crime

Details: Created on Friday, 24 February 2012 18:43

We all know that a driver who is involved in a motor vehicle collision (with another vehicle or a pedestrian) is required to exchange contact information with other drivers. In some states, the same rules apply to people who own or have custody of an animal that bites a person. Specifically, if the owner or custodian of the animal knows or has reason to know that it bit another person, the owner or custodian is required to provide the person, within a specific time frame, with his name, address, telephone number, and the name and license tag number of the animal. See, for example, California Penal Code section 398(a):

398. (a) If a person owning or having custody or control of an animal knows, or has reason to know, that the animal bit another person, he or she shall, as soon as is practicable, but no later than 48 hours thereafter, provide the other person with his or her name, address, telephone number, and the name and license tag number of the animal who bit the other person. If the person with custody or control of the animal at the time the bite occurs is a minor, he or she shall instead provide identification or contact information of an adult owner or responsible party. If the animal is required by law to be vaccinated against rabies, the person owning or having custody or control of the animal shall, within 48 hours of the bite, provide the other person with information regarding the status of the animal' s vaccinations. Violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100).

Every state should enact such a law. Frequently I receive email from dog bite victims who cannot identify the attacking dog or its owner. They face the pain of rabies injections plus the injustice of bearing the entire burden of the injury, meaning not only the pain and disability but also the expenses of treatment and the loss of income from work. Dog ownership is a privilege, and responsibility is morally and legally required. That begins with stepping forward and admitting that the dog was yours.

The victim who wants to act nice

Details: Created on Monday, 06 February 2012 18:43

I got an email message from a young lady whose face was severely bitten by a girlfriend's Rottweiler last week. She told me that "a chunk the size of a quarter" was taken out of her cheek, and that her bottom lip was "severed in half and hanging off." What did she do? Nothing. She did not even go to the doctor.

Why not? She did not want to bother her girlfriend. She did not want the authorities to know what the dog did, out of fear that the dog would be taken away. So she did not get medical help or make a report to animal control.

A week later, she is starting to doubt the correctness of her decisions. She wrote to me and asked whether she could get her medical bills paid. Here is what I told her:

I want to start off by telling you that I am very sorry for you. My career is all about dog bite victims. That means, however, not only you but also the kids in the neighborhood where your girlfriend lives.

The first thing you should know is that this dog will seriously injure a young child very soon. Rottweilers and pit bulls do most of the serious killing in the USA, with regard to humans. A dog that does this to you will send the same wrong signals to a child and then will seriously alter the kid's life.

Upon reflecting on this, consider your options. You can be a good person to your girlfriend and not report this to the animal control authorities, and leave the kids in the neighborhood open to danger. If something happens and your girlfriend goes to jail, however, you might end up not feeling too good. Yes, dog owners can go to jail when they keep a dog that is known to attack without justification. And by the way, the kid's life changes for worse too.

In the past year, many of the human fatalities by dogs have been the dogs' own owners. So not only are the kids in danger, but also your girlfriend.

On the other hand, you can tell your girlfriend to have the dog put down, and make sure it happens, thereby making both of you take a stand to show just how conscientious you are, how responsible you both are, how stand-up you both are. How interested in fairness and justice for everyone, not just yourselves.

Or you can go the other route. Find out if she has insurance, and make a claim for medical payments and liability payments against her insurance policy. Just take care of yourself and your medical bills, and forget everyone else. Let the kids in the neighborhood take their chances. Maybe they will be okay. But put the risk on them. Let the chips fall where they may, as long as you get your bills paid.

Those are your options. Now make your choice. Yes, my words are harsh. But not unnecessarily so. Do you remember Diane Whipple, the young teacher who was brutally killed by dogs in San Francisco 10 years ago? The dog that killed her had nipped and lunged at about 25 people in the neighborhood, but none of them had ever told the authorities. Only two people had actually been bitten by that dog before it killed Diane ... and she was one of them. Even she failed to report it. And then it killed her. There are other dog owners who have been killed by their own dogs in the last year. So my words are harsh, but need to be heard.

Kenneth M. Phillips

Pit Bulls: Risks and Solutions

Details: Created on Thursday, 18 August 2011 18:41

Pit bull owners often say that the dog is not dangerous, and most of the time they are correct. Pit bulls have not been proved to bite people more often than other dogs bite people. Nevertheless, the pregnant woman who recently was mauled to death by one of her own pit bulls belonged to a group which was campaigning to convince people that pit bulls are not dangerous. The name of that group was "Dog Lovers Responsible about Pit Bulls." Her dog bit her dozens of times in her body and face, killing her and her unborn child. (Read the article.)

The question we must ask ourselves is whether the risk of this being repeated is worth taking. When any other dog has a bad day, somebody can get hurt; when a pit bull has a bad day, somebody can get killed. Although the appalling lack of statistics cannot reliably tell us the number of victims from this breed of dog, the news reports as well as an important recent study confirm that attacks by pit bulls result in far greater injuries, hospitalizations and medical costs that attacks by other dogs. In recent years, most human fatalities, if caused by a dog, were inflicted by pit bulls. (Read the abstract.)

If this breed is not to be banned altogether, it certainly must be restricted in several important respects: who may own it, where it may live, and how it is to be confined and restrained whether on public or private property. It should not be owned by minors, ex-criminals, were people who violate leash laws or any animal control laws. It should not be allowed to live in multifamily dwellings or upon premises used for day care. It should be confined in dog runs with a floor, four sides, and a roof. It should only be permitted in public when it is on a 4 foot leash wearing a secure muzzle designed to prevent biting. In a court of law it should be presumed that if a pit bull is running at large, a person who kills it was acting in self-defense.

If the mayhem continues, stronger measures certainly might be warranted. To prevent that from happening, dog fanciers and breeders should immediately commence the following strategy: pit bulls should be carefully bred for nonviolent tendencies, all violations of animal control laws should be immediately reported whether or not the involved dog is a pit bull, and pit bull owners should be educated as to the proper care, handling and confinement of their dogs.

For further reading: Arguments for and Against Breed Specific Laws; Preventing Dog Bites: Keep Certain High-risk Breeds Away from the Wrong People, Places and Situations

A New Definition of "Provocation" That's Both Good and Bad

Details: Created on Thursday, 22 September 2011 18:42

Today the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling about the defense of provocation in the field of dog bite law. In the case of Engquist v. Loyas, the court held that under the canine injury liability statute (Minn. Ann. C. section 347.22) “provocation” is voluntary conduct by the plaintiff-victim that exposes him to a risk of harm from the dog, where he had knowledge of the risk.

This definition is both good and bad for dog bite victims. It's good because it limits provocation as a defense. Provocation has been misapplied in some cases to cover just about anything that can stimulate a response by a dog. For example, a person who whistles while he is one block away from a dog might cause the dog to jump up and thereby injure another person who is standing next to the dog. If provocation is merely defined as an act that causes a dog to respond, then the whistling could arguably constitute provocation, and could prevent a victim from receiving fair compensation for his injuries.

The Engquist case equated provocation with an entirely different doctrine called "assumption of the risk." The latter is a defense which is based upon an appreciation of a danger as well as a voluntary act that exposes one to it. If the victim is bitten or injured because of an act on his part signifying that he has consented to the possibility of getting bitten or injured, then he is said to have assumed the risk, and therefore he cannot hold the dog owner legally liable for the payment of damages. In the context of canine inflicted injuries, the defense of assumption of the risk usually is limited to veterinarians, dog trainers and similar types of dog bite victims. Therefore the nature of assumption of the risk and the type of victim that the defense is used against are quite different from provocation.

While it is good in some ways to limit provocation to actions which assume the risk of injury, it is bad because it leaves out an essential element of provocation, namely the usual requirement of justifiable self-defense on the part of the dog. For example, if a person hits a dog with a stick or steps on its paw, the doctrine of provocation usually prevents the person from receiving compensation for his injuries. In other words, a provocative act is one which provides justification for the dog's violent reaction along the lines of self-defense.

The Minnesota ruling focuses on assumption of the risk but leaves out the element of justifiable self-defense. The Engquist case itself demonstrates the harm that this new definition of provocation might case. The little girl in this case was bitten while attempting to pet a friend's dog in a dark area. Engquist holds that the jury is entitled to decide whether the girl provoked the dog and therefore should be barred from receiving compensation for her injuries. This is unfair to the girl because she did not do anything truly provocative -- that is, anything that would justify a violent act of self-defense on the part of the dog.

In leaving out the essential element of self-defense from its new definition of provocation, the Minnesota Supreme Court has expanded the definition of this defense, while at the same time limiting it to situations involving assumption of the risk. This case therefore is both bad and good for victims.

Government Agencies Are Legally Liable For Some Dog Attacks

Details: Created on Friday, 12 August 2011 18:40

Judges and juries have been finding animal control departments, school districts and other governmental entities liable for their negligence in dealing with vicious dogs throughout the USA.

In Tennessee, the County of Knox was required to settle the wrongful death case brought by the family of Jennifer Lowe. The animal control department had made a finding that pit bulls owned by Charles Smallwood were vicious, and had ordered Smallwood to confine the dogs. When the department learned that he disregarded the order, they failed to take further action against him or the dogs. Soon thereafter they killed 21-year-old Jennifer. Wayne A. Ritchie II and I defeated the county's attempt to obtain summary judgment, and the case quickly settled.

In California, the counties of Fresno and Humbolt, the City of Parlier, and the Parlier Unified School District have been held liable for a variety of negligent acts. A 16-year-old young lady named Krystal Cooney was attacked by a pack of vicious dogs that had lived on a vacant lot at Parlier High School for a decade. She suffered numerous lacerations on her arms and legs, resulting in permanent scarring. Fresno County and the City of Parlier were held responsible for the negligence of animal control officers who had failed to remove the dogs. Parlier Unified School District contended that it had no duty to keep the dogs off of its property. I defeated the school district's motion for summary judgment, and the case settled.

The largest case comes from Florida. Daniel Decembre, an Orlando youngster, was horribly disfigured by a pit bull that attacked him on school property. The school district knew that dogs were running into the school yard but little or nothing was done to prevent it. The State of Florida (which pays such liabilities for the school districts) settled for a total of $2 million.

I represented the dog bite victims in two of the cases mentioned above. The obstacle in all such actions is the government's belief that it should not be held liable for vicious dogs running loose. There are a number of legal reasons why the animal control agencies MUST be held liable, however. One of the most obvious is the double-bind that ordinary citizens must face when confronted by dangerous dogs: if you kill or injure the dog, prosecutors will go after you for animal cruelty, firing a weapon in the city, or whatever else they can think of, but if you do nothing, the animal control department may also do nothing and the dog will continue to endanger the neighborhood.

I feel that the duty of animal control departments to rid the streets of dangerous dogs should clearly be made into a so-called "mandatory duty," meaning that the departments will have to go after vicious dogs as if the dogs were criminals. It also would mean that the departments would clearly be legally liable for injuries that such dogs inflict, if the departments knew about the dogs and had the opportunity to deal with them, but failed to do so. A change in the law, coupled with adequate funding for the departments, would save hundreds of millions of dollars in medical bills and lost human capital. Dogs kill more than 30 Americans per year and send 1,000 per day to emergency rooms. The cost of enforcing the animal control laws therefore is reasonable.

A Call to Action for the Legislature of Rhode Island

Details: Created on Friday, 16 September 2011 15:08

The Supreme Court of the State of Rhode Island recently ruled that the owner of a chained dog which violently attacked a Pawtucket city inspector could not be held liable under the state's strict liability dog bite statute or even under a theory of premises liability. (Read the decision in the case of DuBois v. Quilitzsch by clicking here.) The court's decision was based on the wording of the statute itself. The law imposes strict liability when the attack happens while the dog is "traveling the highway or out of the enclosure of the owner or keeper of that dog." On the other hand, there is a loophole: when the victim is within “a fence, physical obstruction or any other condition that gives reasonable notice to third parties that the area is private” then the dog bite statute does not apply.

In making these rulings, the DuBois court repeatedly referred to the fact that in recent times the state legislature had passed other laws regarding dogs but had not modified the state's dog bite statute to impose liability upon dog owners for all bites under all circumstances. "We continue to be of the opinion that any modification to our dog bite law is best left to the General Assembly," the court wrote.

This is a call to action. The legislature should pass, and the governor should sign into law, an amendment to the state's dog bite statute that eliminates the loophole which enables dog owners and their homeowners insurance companies to escape paying fair compensation to dog bite victims. Why should a dog owner be protected from liability when, for example, he chains up a dog (which causes biting) or allows a dog to concealed itself from people who are lawfully on the premises? In the DuBois case, both of those features were present: the defendant had chained up his dog and the dog sprang out at the victim from a hiding place under some grapevines.

The General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island should amend the dog bite statute without further delay. Strict liability for dog bites creates an atmosphere of vigilance, while protecting dog owners from paying just compensation to victims contributes to an atmosphere of injury. In a country that believes in accountability and personal responsibility, it is hard to understand creating loopholes or allowing identified loopholes to continue to exist for people who fail to control their animals. Two-thirds of the American states have dog bite statutes, most of which are unforgiving. There is no justification for forcing dog bite victims to bear not only all the pain, but also all the expense of their injuries.

Will Dog Owners Ever Learn?

Details: Created on Saturday, 04 June 2011 18:39

Some people never learn from their mistakes. When a mistake hurts the one who made it, we take pity and sometimes we pass laws against it, like the anti-drug and anti-smoking laws. We also might say, "that will teach him a lesson." When a mistake hurts another person or an animal, however, we might feel anger and we often pass laws making it a crime of some sort. But not everyone obeys those laws. Here is an exchange of email that I had with a dog owner today, telling two stories about mistakes that should teach a person a lesson:

Hello Mr. Phillps.
I ran across your info. online. I have a question..
My little dog, a 5 lb. Yorkie was mauled by another dog in our neighborhood. However, my dog was not on a leash as she should have been AND she is not licensed or registered.
I have had her for several years. She walks with me like that every day/night..and says hello to all the dogs in the neighborhood. she went to say hit to this one and he immediately grabbed her by his teeth and shook her like a rag doll.
She has been in the ER for 3 days. She has several broken ribs, lung damage, crushed diaphram, muscle wall damage, multiple lesions, etc. And, had surgery today to make sure there was not further internal damage. I have missed 2 days of work and I have not slept since it happened. My daughter is traumatized.
She barely made it through..
This has cost me over 6,000 so far. And, it's probably a long ways from being done.The other dog was on a leash..and, the owner/walker was mortified. And, we were both hysterical and in shock. I did not get her name or anything.
But, I'd like to try and find her to see if she will help me pay these bills...and, I do think the police should know that he has this capability or tendency..
As even if my dog was on a leash, it would have happened...as R___ wasn't doing anything to provoke him.
I'm scared to report it as I didn't have R___ legally licensed, registered, etc.
Can you tell me if I should report it and/or if I can or should expect this person to help with the medical bills?
Thank you for any advice you have. [Name withheld for the sake of privacy.]

Dear _____ :

My wife and I owned a great little Yorkie, and we miss her since she passed away about 3 years ago.

I don't have anything positive to say to you, other than sending my heartfelt condolances. It was a terrible mistake, and probably illegal, for you to have your dog off leash like that.

A Yorkie owner has to know how delicate the dog is. They are easily killed or injured. Being terriers, they are unafraid to approach bigger dogs, even pit bulls, which kill Yorkies every day.

Let me tell you a true story that could help you in the future. One day, I was driving down the street and I saw a lady with an unleashed pug, the dog running merrily along the sidewalk. I swerved my car because pugs are fearless and will charge under the wheels of a truck. As I passed the dog, I shot a look at the lady but she didn't see me.

I saw a UPS truck approaching from the opposite direction. I looked in my rearview mirror to see where the pug was. I saw it jump off the sidewalk and run at the UPS truck. I heard the woman scream.

I stopped my car and got out. The UPS truck was still headed up the street. Behind it, the dog was crushed into the asphalt, dead. The woman was standing on her lawn with her face buried in her hands.

That's not the end of the story. A month later, I was driving down the same street, thinking about the pug that had been killed. As I approached the scene of the accident, I saw the same lady. She was with an unleashed pug, the dog running merrily along the sidewalk. I swerved my car again.

Don't be like her, please. Learn from this terrible experience with your Yorkie.