Dog Attack Fatalities | Davis Law Group

Seattle Animal Control Ordinances | Davis Law Group

Everyday Do's and Don'ts to Prevent Dog Bites | Davis Law Group

Top 10 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds | Davis Law Group

6-year-old Elma Boy Attacked by Pit Bull

Date:  March 26, 2009
Location:  Elma, WA
Type:  Pit Bull Attack

Danny Davenport, 6-years-old, is recovering from bite wounds to his head, arms and hands after a pit bull attack at his family's apartment complex.

The pit bull reportedly escaped through a door left ajar at his neighbor’s house.

The boy’s family credits a Good Samaritan driving by for saving him.

The pit bull’s owner confirmed the dog was responsible for the attack and has turned the dog over to authorities. The dog will be euthanized.

Danny's family, former pit-bull owner’s, are now advocating for stronger protection.

Children and Dog Bite Claims l Seattle Dog Bite Attorney

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there are an estimated 68 million dogs kept as pets in the United States.  There are more than 1 million dog bites reported each year.  And there are estimates that an equal number of dog bites (1 million) go unreported every year.  Of the one million or so dog bites reported each year, about 60% involve an injury to a child.  Approximately 70% of dog bite wounds are inflicted on the child’s face.  Children ages 5 to 9 have the highest dog bite-related injuries.

More than 60% of dog bites occur in the home of the dog owner.  Approximately 77% of dog bite victims are members or close friends of the dog owner’s family and are therefore familiar with the dog.

Contrary to popular myth, there is no such thing as a child-friendly dog breed.  Although some breeds may be more suitable for children, a dog’s propensity to bite is dependent on many factors, including without limitation, the dog’s inherited traits, environment, training, and socialization.  Studies have shown that the most positive influence on a dog’s comfort around children is the opportunity to positively interact with the child when the dog is a young puppy.

There are some guidelines that, if followed, can reduce the chance that a dog will bite a young child.  The critical age for socializing a dog is between the ages of three and fourteen weeks.  A dog in this age range who is introduced to young children has a much lower incidence rate of biting kids.  Neutering male dogs decreases the chance of aggressive behavior.  If you plan to have young children and a dog, it is best to bring in the dog while it is young and introduce it to the children during the toddler age. 

Dogs also need to be introduced to children of all ages.  Young toddlers will act differently around the dog than a 10-year-old child will.  Children should also be involved with the training sessions of the dog.  This allows the dog to experience the child as an authoritative figure and thereby decrease the chances of a bite.  Children should also be involved in other caretaking activities, like feeding, grooming and bathing the dog. 

Parents should also never leave young children alone with a dog, particularly if the dog has limited experience with that child.  You can also teach children to recognize fearful or aggressive behavior in dogs so the child can take steps to avoid or minimize the risk of a bite.

And finally, parents should be good examples of how to treat the dog.  Children often emulate their parents’ behavior and this also applies to the parents’ interaction with the dog.

Washington State's Dog Bite Statute l Seattle Injury & Dog Bite Attorney

Historically, a person could only recover damages against a dog owner if he could prove that the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s viciousness or propensity to bite.  This law was called the “One Bite Rule” because it meant that every dog owner had one “free bite” before civil liability could be imposed (i.e., damages could be collected against the dog owner).  This turned out to be an unjust rule because there were no mandatory reporting requirements when a dog injured a person.  Consequently, a dog bite victim had difficulty proving that the dog had previously injured someone else.  If a dog owner denied having knowledge that his dog had previously injured another person, it was virtually impossible for the dog bite victim to prove otherwise and the claim would fail.

               Fortunately, the Washington State Legislature recognized the difficulties dog bite victims faced by having to prove the dog owner’s prior knowledge of the dog’s viciousness.  As a result, the legislature supplemented the “One Bite Rule” law by enacting a specific statute that addressed the proof problems associated with that rule.  Now, Washington State has its own “Dog Bite Statute,” which removed the requirement of proving that the dog owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s propensity to bite. That statute states as follows:

The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.  See RCW 16.08.040.

 As written, the law effectively holds dog owners strictly liable for any injuries or bites the dog inflicts on others.  This means the owner is liable for a dog bite injury even if the dog has never bit another human being and even if the dog has never previously acted in an aggressive manner.  However, there are certain facts that must be present before a dog owner can be held legally responsible under Washington’s dog bite statute.  These facts will be discussed in later posts.

           If anyone does have more questions about Washington's Dog Bite Law, please contact the lawyers at Davis Law Group 206-727-4000.

DLG Settles Dog Bite Case for $80,000

SEATTLE, WA - DLG announces that it settled a dog bite case on behalf of a 45-year-old woman.  The case was fairly complex and presented an unusual fact pattern.  The victim, Anne Ramey,* was an employee of a local animal shelter.  In her spare time she performed temperament tests or evaluations of dogs.

The incident happened in March 2007.  Ms. Ramey was asked to evaluate a dog that was being  harbored in a Seattle dog kennel business.  The dog was a "foster dog" that was technically owned by the shelter where Ms. Ramey worked.  But the dog had been going to the kennel for a few years as a customer.  The dog was relinquished to the shelter when the owner moved out of state.  The kennel owner suggested that the dog stay with her, but that it had to be formally surrendered to the shelter for "liability purposes." 

The dog had already been put up for adoption when a volunteer with the shelter noticed that the animal acted aggressively on its leash.  Ms. Ramey was asked to give a second opinion.  While performing her temperament test, the dog attacked and viciously bit Ms. Ramey on the face.  The bite left a large 2-3 inch laceration near Ms. Ramey's eye.  She also suffered a broken nose.  She underwent surgery to repair the laceration and a second surgery to repair her broken nose.  The total medical bills were approximately $18,000. 

After DLG was hired several depositions were performed.  Investigation revealed that the dog kennel owner had knowledge that the dog had attacked and bitten a homeless man several months before Ms. Ramey's injury.  DLG founder Chris Davis also deposed a former employee at the dog kennel. He stated that the dog kennel owner was repeatedly informed by him that this dog was too dangerous to be around humans.  When he found out the kennel owner was going to place the dog in the adoption program, he terminated his employment.  The dog kennel admitted that she was aware of a prior incident involving the dog, but disputed that it rose to the level of a bite attack.

The insurance company and lawyers representing the dog kennel owner argued vigorously that Ms. Ramey was at fault for performing an aggressive temperament test.  They also argued that Ms. Ramey failed to gather enough information about the dog's prior history and take necessary precautions that would have prevented the attack.  The insurance company had hired a reputable dog handling expert from the state of Florida who was prepared to testify that Ms. Ramey bore much of the responsibility for the attack.

The case settled at mediation on Aug. 1, 2008 for the gross amount of $80,000.  The dog kennel owner's insurance company, Safeco, will pay the entire settlement amount.  Ms. Ramey was represented by Seattle attorney Chris Davis.  Mr. Davis has handled dozens of dog bite case over the last 15 years as a personal injury specialist.  Mr. Davis has also been recognized as a Super Lawyer in consecutive years by the legal publication Washington Law & Politics magazine.

*Names have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals involved.

Should Pit Bulls Be Banned in Seattle?

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reported today on the issue of banning pit bull dogs in the City of Seattle.  Apparently, the topic has been at least presented to the Seattle City Council, but nothing has been done because council members are divided on the issue.

 "We look at the deed, not the breed," Don Jordan of the Seattle Animal Shelter said. "We get in some very massive, muscular dogs that have evidence of fighting. At the same time, we get some very sweet-hearted dogs,” says Jordan.

The ban of certain breeds is fairly controversial.  There are many pro-dog groups that are vehemently against banning a particular breed.  They argue that the dog’s owner is mostly to blame for any violent or aggressive attacks against humans.  On the other side are groups who defend the ban of certain breeds that are alleged to be responsible for a very high proportion of dog bite incidents.  The pit bull is one such breed.

In the state of Ohio for instance, pit bull dogs are presumed to be vicious.  These breeds are governed by specific laws or ordinances.  Ohio attorney Chuck Boyk has written on the subject.  Mr. Boyk is a personal injury attorney in Toledo, Ohio.  He has authored the Ohio Dog Bite Book which explains why pit bull breeds have been banned in many cities in Ohio.

I have actually represented a woman who was employed by the Seattle Animal Shelter and a very strong opponent against any type of breed-ban law.  This woman was actually attacked and injured by a breed known to be aggressive.  But she still opposes any ban because she believes the aggressive dogs are created by their owners, not by any characteristic of the particular breed. But other people still feel strongly that certain breeds, like pit bulls, should be banned or at least governed by separate rules.

West Seattle resident Colleen Lynne previously supported a ban on pit bulls.  Ms. Lynne said she doesn't accept the claim that pit bulls are simply misunderstood.  She spent two days at Harborview Medical Center after being attacked by a leashed pit bull on June 17, 2007.  "I didn't know it was an attack until I was on the ground," Lynne said. "He got my arm, and he broke it, and he dragged me across the concrete. ... My whole life changed afterwards."

Seattle attorney Chris Davis has handled dozens of dog bite cases over the last 15 years.  He has been interviewed by local television stations concerning dog bite laws.