DISCLAIMER: By reading this, you acknowledge and agree that the results described are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each client’s case. They should not be interpreted as a guarantee or expectation of similar outcomes in other matters, as results depend on the unique factual and legal circumstances of each case.
Our 13-year-old client was playing in the yard behind his residence when the neighbor’s pitbull escaped a fence separating their property. Our client ran but was chased and viciously attacked by the dog who bit the boy’s inner thigh causing a large wound resulting in the need for surgery. Our client was left with permanent scarring of the inner thigh and emotional trauma from the incident.
During our investigation, the child’s father was able to provide a video taken before the incident showing two aggressive pitbulls attempting to jump over the wood fence. The video also showed the dogs removing pieces of the fence with their teeth. This video was a crucial piece of evidence that was key in proving that the dog owner knew or should have known that the fence was not an effective deterrent to keep her aggressive dogs from escaping the property.
Maryland Code, Courts, and Judicial Proceedings Section 3-1901 creates a rebuttable presumption in cases against owners of dogs. The rule establishes that the owner “knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities” when it attacks an individual without provocation. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901. Under this rule “the owner of the dog is liable for any injury… caused by the dog while the dog is running at large.” Id. In this case, the liability of the dog owner was clear. Maryland law requires that dog owners exercise reasonable care to control their dog(s). Further, Maryland law imposes strict liability against dog owners who permit their dogs to run at large causing injury to others. In this case, the evidence was clear that the owner failed to properly control her dogs.
Despite the law and compelling evidence establishing liability, the dog owner’s homeowner’s insurance company initially did not make a reasonable settlement offer. As a result, we filed a lawsuit on the child’s behalf and after months of litigation, the case was finally settled for a reasonable sum to compensate the child for his physical injuries and emotional trauma.