Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips represented dog bite victims in these notable cases:
The Pit Bull Meat Grinder Case
(California). Mr. Phillips got $7.5 Million for an elderly woman whose adult son adopted a pit bull from the City of Los Angeles animal shelter, which failed to tell him that the dog had been earmarked as “vicious.” A police officer at the scene of the mauling said the victim’s right arm was “looking like it went through a meat grinder and the bones were broken.” Nineteen years before, Mr. Phillips had proposed the law on which the case was based, which he called the Truth In Pet Adoption Law.
The Case of the Bestie’s Beast
(California). $2.3 Million settlement for a young woman who was bitten in the face. She was at her best friend’s house, and was bitten by the family dog. The victim was struggling financially with high medical bills, and needed Mr. Phillips’ reputation and experience to get compensated as soon as possible, without a drawn-out lawsuit. He settled for her in just over one year, without a lawsuit.
The Case of the Manager’s Friends
(Louisiana.) $1 Million settlement for an 8-year-old girl who was attacked by pit bulls and horribly disfigured. The defendant was a family trust that owned rental properties. The pit bulls belonged to tenants at one of those properties. The trust claimed that it was not liable because it did not know that the pit bulls were vicious or that they were even there. Mr. Phillips established liability by proving that the tenants were friends of the manager of the properties, who knew very well that their dogs were vicious.
The Case of the Little Lady Who Loved Dogs
(California.) Seven-figure settlement for a two-year-old boy who was attacked by a neighbor’s dog when his mom set down the child to take groceries out of her car. As she did that, a very small neighbor was walking nearby with her three Akita dogs. One of the dogs saw the boy and started running to get him, leading the other two dogs which, in turn, were pulling the neighbor behind them. The first dog picked up the child by his head, its teeth penetrating the boy’s forehead, eye socket, and cheek. The dogs then began running away with the boy. Mr. Phillips settled the case and oversaw the investment of the child’s money, which will provide a substantial, guaranteed income until his death.
The Case of the Missing Million
(Wisconsin) Seven-figure settlement for an 18-month-old boy whose nose was ripped off by his aunt’s dog. The case is noteworthy for what happened after it was settled. The company that handled the child’s funds proposed a “deal” to his parents that would have allowed that company to keep one million dollars of the child’s money (half of his total). Attorney Phillips exposed the plan and invested the funds with a different company.
The Case of the Lonely Orphan
(Virginia) Six-figure settlement for a young girl who was bitten in the face at an auto repair shop. The business and its owner didn’t own the dog but harbored it at their shop. The case was hotly contested because the dog had never bitten anyone and the shop was in a state that follows the one-bite rule. Nevertheless, Attorney Phillips was able to prove that the defendants made the dog vicious by treating it less than humanely. This is called “The Case of the Lonely Orphan” because, tragically, the girl’s mother gave her up shortly after birth, and her father committed suicide a few months after she was attacked by the dog.
The Case of the Broken Gate
(California) Six-figure settlement against a real estate development company and its property management company when a pit bull went through a nonfunctional gate and killed a homeless woman. Liability was based on the defendants’ failure to inspect the property and fix the gate despite knowing that the tenants owned a pit bull and other dogs. The defendants were confidant that they could not be held liable, and asked the court for “summary judgment,” meaning a judgment against the dead woman’s three children. Mr. Phillips spent one month creating the opposition to the defendants’ motion but, after testing it prior to filing it, spent another month putting together a very different opposition based on different legal principles. When the second opposition was filed in court, the case was immediately settled.
The Case of the Movie Studio Dogs
(California) In a case against a movie studio, a six-figure settlement for an art director who was attacked by studio guard dogs while on a movie set, designing a scene. The caretaker of the premises allowed the dogs to go at large despite knowing that the film crew was present. The movie studio was liable because it was his employer. Mr. Phillips, who began his legal career as a lawyer in the movie and TV industry, presented an ironclad case for the victim’s future loss of earning capacity, which is what the settlement was based on.
The Case of the Taco Eating Sheriffs
(Tennessee) In a case against an animal control department and Sheriff’s Department, a six-figure settlement after a young woman was killed by pit bulls previously declared to be dangerous but nevertheless returned to their owner. The name of the case is based on the unconscionable conduct of the deputy sheriffs who were dispatched to rescue the victim. For 30 minutes while the girl was being mauled, the two deputies went to a restaurant and ate tacos instead. Mr. Phillips obtained videos of them, as well as a copy of the Sheriff’s Department internal affairs investigation of them, and created a powerful, short “film” that stirred outrage against them. The film “said it all,” and the case was settled for the legal maximum that the county was responsible to pay.
The Case of the Girl With the Cellphone
(California) Six-figure settlement against a school district that negligently allowed wild dogs to live on its vacant property. The dogs were known to kill animals belonging to students and to snarl and bark at people walking on school premises. One morning, a 16-year-old girl was walking past the school and a pack of these dogs mauled her almost to death. Amazingly, she had the presence of mind to call 911 as she was being savaged by the dogs. The school filed a motion for summary judgment, saying it could not be held liable for the attack because the school did not own the dogs, and the accident happened off its property. Opposing the motion, Attorney Phillips convinced the court that the real issue was the school’s negligence in failing to get rid of the dogs. Two hours after the court announced its ruling, the case was settled in the girl’s favor.
The Christmas Dinner Party Case
(California) Six-figure settlement against a dog owner whose dog bit off the nose of a 40-year-old woman at a Christmas dinner party. The accident happened in 1991 and was Mr. Phillips’ first dog bite case. As he developed the strategy to win it, he realized that no other lawyer had ever analyzed dog bite law as a unique legal field in and of itself. In fact, the term “dog bite law” had previously not used to denote this area of law until Mr. Phillips created dogbitelaw.com in 1998.
The Case of the Pop-Up Store
(Texas) Six-figure settlement against a retail store whose employee brought her dog to work after it attacked a young boy on the street.
The Case of the Dog that Scalped
(Georgia) Six-figure settlement against a dog owner whose dog scalped a young boy who was playing in his grandparents’ driveway. The dog owners’ insurance company claimed that it was sympathetic to the horribly disfigured child, but said that simple negligence was not a proper legal basis for a lawsuit. Mr. Phillips himself combed the neighborhood for witnesses, and was able to prove that the dog owners had a longstanding habit of breaking the law by allowing their dog to have the run of the neighborhood. Additionally, he wrote a 50-page brief that convinced the trial judge that this kind of negligence was indeed a proper legal ground in Georgia.
The Case of the Dog with the Narrow Eyes
(Pennsylvania) Six-figure settlement against a pit bull owner whose dog bit off both of the cheeks of a young boy. When the victim described what happened, he described how the pit bull squinted at him before it attacked. The narrowing of eyes, as if the dog is concentrating or focusing, is a common precursor to pit bull maulings.
The Case of the Grandparents Who Cried Poverty
(California) Six-figure settlement against the parents of the dog owner. Despite the fact that he was an adult, his parents were fixing something at his house when he was not there, and they let his pit bull run onto the street. It attacked a young mother and bit off her arm. Fortunately, she was rescued before bleeding to death, and her arm was reattached at the hospital. She used her settlement to begin a more stable life for herself and her children in another state.
The Case of the Trusting Tourist
(California) Five-figure settlement against the San Francisco Police Department on behalf of a tourist who was invited into a police car and then bitten on the hand by the police dog that was sitting in the back seat. The K9 officer had negligently unlocked the back door instead of the front door of the police car. The dog attacked because it was trained to do so if its space was violated. The City of San Francisco tried to blame the tourist until Mr. Phillips took the officer’s deposition. Phillips’ detailed knowledge of the training of police dogs proved to be the deciding factor in that deposition. The case settled soon afterwards.
The Case of the Dogs That Hunted Through the Wall
(California) Five-figure settlement against a construction company for emotional distress suffered by a woman who previously had been attacked by a pair of Rottweilers that lived next door, after construction workers allowed the dogs to escape and chase her. As part of the settlement, Mr. Phillips demanded that the neighbors get rid of the Rottweilers, because the victim was experiencing extreme fear whenever she heard the dogs “following her” on their side of the wall that separated the two households. The construction firm’s insurance company insisted it was responsible only for the cost of the victim’s medical treatment, not her emotional distress, and not her huge financial loss from losing her job. Mr. Phillips succeeded in holding them responsible for all of the woman’s treatment, emotional distress, and loss of income.
The Case of the Trusting Pet Sitter
(California) Five-figure settlement for a pet sitter against the owners of the dog she was taking care of. Normally a pet sitter is not allowed to sue for a dog bite, but this case was different because of legal technicalities. The first was that the pet sitter was the dog owners’ employee, according to Attorney Phillips. The second was that the dog owners did not have workers compensation insurance for their pet sitter employee. When the insurance company accepted that they had to pay something, they only offered to pay the victim a very small amount of money based on workers compensation. Mr. Phillips then contended that the dog owners could be sued for full compensation because they did not have workers compensation insurance. The settlement was for full compensation.
DISCLAIMER: Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result. The case histories, testimonials, and endorsements at this site do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter or potential legal matter.