9 Days, 2 Dead Toddlers, 2 “Family Dogs” – USA Deaths 29 and 30
Two Florida toddlers have been killed in the past 9 days, both by “family dogs.” On December 13, Dallas Walters (20 months of age) was killed by his aunt’s pet Rottweiler, while on December 22, Liam Perk (2 years old) was killed by his parents’ pet Wemaraner. Both fatalities happened inside a residence, and both were in Florida.
One of the myths about dog attacks is that they involve stray dogs. In truth, 75% of the time the dog belongs to a family member, friend or neighbor.
Beware the Co-Worker’s Dog!
Your co-worker’s dog (or other animal) can be doubly dangerous because the worker’s compensation laws might prevent you from recovering the full amount of your damages if the animal injures you.
That defense has been raised in the horrific chimp-mauling of Charla Nash, whose hands, nose, lips and eyelids were ripped off by a co-worker’s chimpanzee several months ago. The attorneys for the chimp’s owner, Sandra Herold, have asserted that Nash’s multi-million-dollar claim be governed by the worker’s compensation laws because both Nash and Herold were working with the chimp, which was used to promote their employer’s business.
In almost all cases, the existence of a workers compensation remedy does not hurt an injured employee’s dog bite claim, because the employee is allowed to proceed against both the workers compensation insurance as well as the dog owner’s insurance. When the dog owner is a coworker, however, two problems can arise: first, the right to proceed against a coworker might be eliminated by the workers compensation law, and second the homeowners insurance of the dog owner may exclude coverage for work-related incidents.
Therefore employers who allow workers to bring their dogs to the job site or office are inadvertently increasing not only the risk of harm to their employees, but also the degree of harm. The presence of dogs creates the opportunity for dog bites and therefore raises the risk of harm. Additionally, the fact that the injury might be considered work related means that the injured employee could be prevented from collecting all that the law provides otherwise, which thereby increases the degree of the harm.
Mass. Courts Increasing Civil and Criminal Liabilities of Pit Bull Owners
Two court decisions in the State of Massachusetts this year have significantly raised the stakes for pit bull owners and those who allow pit bulls to reside upon their premises. These cases will influence other courts throughout the USA.
In one decision, the state supreme court ruled that if a pit bull is on the premises, officers executing a search warrant do not have to observe the “knock and announce rule.” In Commonwealth v. Santiago (2009) 452 Mass. 573, the Massachusetts Supreme Court justified an exception to the “knock and announce” rule for the execution of a search warrant where, among other factors, on the premises to be searched was a pit bull–an animal the court stated was “known to be dangerous and aggressive”–that could be used to confront the officers. Id. at 578.
This week, the mid-level appellate court rendered a decision that has broad implications in the civil law pertaining to pit bulls. The court held that a dog that mounts a person can be considered dangerous, and the fact that a landlord knows that a pit bull is on his or her premises can support a finding that the landlord had scienter.
In Nutt v. Florio (2009) ___ , No. 08-P-81, October 19, 2009, the Massachusetts Appeals Court overturned a summary judgment in favor of the defendant landlord, against a plaintiff child who was a residential tenant at the landlord’s premises, and who was bitten by a pit bull owned by another tenant. The landlord had prior knowledge that the pit bull ran loose on the premises, behaved aggressively, and had mounted the child and his mother several times.
The Appeals Court held that the landlord’s knowledge of these facts — including that the dog was a pit bull — was sufficient to raise an issue to be decided by a jury. Regarding the dog (named “Tiny”) being a pit bull, the court said:
While the defendants may not be held strictly liable by virtue of Tiny’s breed, knowledge of that breed and its propensities may properly be a factor to be considered in determining whether the defendants were negligent under common-law principles.
Three Dead Over the Weekend – USA Fatalities #19, 20 and 21
Senior citizens and children are the usual victims of dog attacks. (See Dog Bite Statistics.) That was certainly true this past weekend.
On August 14, 2009, 66-year-old Sherry Schweder and her husband, Lothar Schweder, 76-years-old, were killed by an unknown number of dogs near the couple’s home outside Atlanta, GA. (Read the article.)
On August, 15, 2009, a 3-day-old infant was snatched from his crib and killed by his parents’ pit bull. This happened in Hardy County, W. Virginia, and no names are available at this time. (Click for the article.)
The death of the infant resulted from a 6-month-pregnant woman getting a pit bull from a relative, according to the article linked above. A review of the recent pit bull homicides would have told this family that pit bulls have been known to kill their owners’ kids.
A German Shepard was present when the baby was taken. According to the Dog Attack Danger Scale, the danger to this child was foreseeable. Three factors on the scale were present:
1. Pit bull, Rottweiler, Akita or Chow. Most fatal dog attacks are by pit bulls. In 2008, 65% of the fatalities were by pit bulls.
2. The pack mentality. Three dogs are worse than 2, 4 are worse than 3, etc. Docile dogs often become uncharacteristically violent and vicious when they are in a pack. In 2008, 39% of the fatalities involved multiple dogs.
3. Newness. A new dog in the house is dangerous for the first 60 days, and a person who is new to a household where a dog resides is in danger of attack for the first 60 days. In 2007 and 2008, 20% of fatal dog attacks involved a new person or dog sharing a household for a period of two months or less.
Mother and Grandmother Face 20 Years in Prison For Child’s Death
On November 6, 2007, 11-year-old Seth Lovitt was running through his own home when his parents’ pit bull jumped off a couch and mauled the child to death. This happened in Killeen, Texas.
Today a grand jury indicted Brenda Ellen Parker, the boy’s grandmother, and Misty L. Lovitt, his mother, on a count of manslaughter and a count of reckless serious bodily injury to a child. In a statement, the prosecutor said there is evidence that the women knew the dog had violent tendencies because it had previously bitten another person. If convicted, the women could be sentenced to prison for between two and 20 years, and a fine of up to $10,000 on each charge. (Read the article.)
A dog that can kill your children and land you in jail for 20 years is hardly “man’s best friend.” While there are people who are capable of controlling such an animal, there are many more people who cannot. The question is whether pit bull fanciers can band together to clean up their own ranks, and perhaps selectively breed pit bulls that will not attack people unpredictably. If that does not happen, we will see more deaths, more violent attacks, and more mothers and grandmothers serving long prison sentences.
