Bitten By a Neighbor's Dog

I'm in a similar situation. I was bitten by a neighbor's loose dog when I tried to put it and her buddy on a leash and see its tag to contact the owner. The dog bite was pretty deep.

I contacted the owner requesting restitution. They offered to only pay my medical bills, and basically said that it was my own fault for being bitten, so they refused to compensate me for pain and suffering. Since my medical and lost wages were less than $500, I may end up in small claims court for pain and suffering.

My question is: would the courts really deny me pain and suffering compensation because I tried to help the dog? It wasn't like the dog was running around out of control, and I was able to secure his buddy, so I had no reason to believe this dog would bite me. The bite occurred while I was planning my wedding, so it did give me emotional distress, and was quite painful. Seven months after the incident, in my wedding photos you can distinctly see the scarring.

As for how much I asked for, I asked for 5 times my medical, given my wedding. Does that seem in line with other damages awarded?

Thank you!

You tacked this onto somebody else's thread without identifying your state. As laws vary by state, we need you to tell us where this happened.

Sorry, I was not aware that this was a different topic.

I am in California. Thank you!

Quote:

---

Quoting California Civil Code, Sec. 3342.

---

(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner within the meaning of this section when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:

(1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity.

(2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.

(3) In the execution of a warrant.

(4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.

(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or military work enumerated in subdivision (b).

---

Despite the seemingly plain language of the statute, California courts do recognize a defenses of provocation, negligently causing the attack, and assumption of risk.

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Despite the seemingly plain language of the statute, California courts do recognize a defenses of provocation, negligently causing the attack, and assumption of risk.

---

so in ca if you poke a sleeping dog with a stick and it wakes and bites you ..
most likely the owner would prevail if any suits were filed as provocation and negligence caused the incident not aggression?

Quote:

---

Quoting Raivyn

---

I'm in a similar situation. I was bitten by a neighbor's loose dog when I tried to put it and her buddy on a leash and see its tag to contact the owner. The dog bite was pretty deep.

I contacted the owner requesting restitution. They offered to only pay my medical bills, and basically said that it was my own fault for being bitten, so they refused to compensate me for pain and suffering. Since my medical and lost wages were less than $500, I may end up in small claims court for pain and suffering.

My question is: would the courts really deny me pain and suffering compensation because I tried to help the dog? It wasn't like the dog was running around out of control, and I was able to secure his buddy, so I had no reason to believe this dog would bite me. The bite occurred while I was planning my wedding, so it did give me emotional distress, and was quite painful. Seven months after the incident, in my wedding photos you can distinctly see the scarring.

As for how much I asked for, I asked for 5 times my medical, given my wedding. Does that seem in line with other damages awarded?

Thank you!

---

morally
thank you for helping stray dogs and please continue but be more careful

legally you have the right to ignore stray dogs so when you approach them you are assuming risk which may bar you from recovery.

the owners are saying ..thank you for helping my dog. sorry it bit you so heres the medical bills.
they are not going to sign over the deed to the farm for ya.

whatever you do don't turn against pets cuz of this. the lost dog sensing a stranger trying to restrain it was probably a fear bite not a dominance or aggression bite. so please keep helping strays but be more cautious.

What about wage loss?

still assumed risk

(i think)

Thanks all for the posts!

I saw that in CA there are some defenses such as provocation and assumption of risk.

So first of all, did I provoke the dog that bit me? You could argue that either way, I suppose. Did my taking the dog's collar provoke him? It didn't provoke his buddy, who I successfully leashed. I also figured that because the dog had a collar, it was a pet, and so was used to a leash. So that defense, I think can go either way.

So did I assume the risk? I would say no, because if I thought it was dangerous, I wouldn't have tried to help the dog, and I was able to help his friend, so I didn't see any danger.

While there are defenses, there are several CA cases in which the plaintiff was able to prevail. I'm trying to decide if I should go forward and file a small claims court suit or not. I'm not sure how strong my case is.

What do you all think?

Quote:

---

Did my taking the dog's collar provoke him?

---

Possibly.

Quote:

---

It didn't provoke his buddy, who I successfully leashed.

---

Two different dogs, two different temperaments, two different reactions.

The thing with other people's dogs is that you have absolutely no idea how they're going to react to any given situation. You don't know the dog's background, either.

My own dog is just as sweet as pie and twice as dumb and generally wouldn't do anything worse than drooling all over any and all passer-by. But if you grab his collar, I promise you, he will try to eat your face.

He's a rescue, you see. His other people used to hold him by his collar and beat him. It was profoundly traumatizing, and he associates having his collar taken hold of with Very Bad Things happening immediately after.

You simply cannot tell how a dog is going to react to any given situation if you aren't familiar with that particular dog.

Frankly, I don't think you have much of a case, for precisely the reasons I mentioned. Just because you were able to approach a dog's companion safely does not make for a reasonable assumption that you could approach him safely. When dealing with creatures that have lots of sharp teeth, caution should be the order of the day - especially if you're not already on friendly terms with said creature and the owner is nowhere in sight.