Dog Attack- Liability question

[nfotiu]

I have a question that may sound cold but... Is there any limit to what the dog owner can claim? If it is a $500 dog, is it reasonable to run up tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills to try and save it? Can they take it to every specialist in the country and hope to recover expense. How does the law treat animals in these cases? Are they treated like injuries to people or more like property?

[wretched34]

There definitely needs to be more information.
Sure the OP's friend acknowledges and admits that her dog has an aggression issue, but did the other dog as well? Just because a dog can be aggressive, doesn't mean it will be 100% of the time.
Did her dog simply jump out of the car and go grab the first dog it could to kill it? or did it approach another dog, that showed aggression towards it, and all hell broke loose?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

they are not relevant whatsoever. let's assume the answers to your questions are the worst possible answers and the dog who was attacked was unleashed, on public land and was confrontational. tell me how it changes anything. if your dog had a dog running towards it, it might be confrontational as well (assuming it was, which is likely not what happened since the OP mentioned nothing about that).

It is relevant because both parties need to ensure they are in control of their dog.

Do you understand the concept of contributory negligence?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I have a question that may sound cold but... Is there any limit to what the dog owner can claim? If it is a $500 dog, is it reasonable to run up tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills to try and save it? Can they take it to every specialist in the country and hope to recover expense. How does the law treat animals in these cases? Are they treated like injuries to people or more like property?

A pet is not a car. There is no set point where you can just write it off and insist the animal be destroyed.

That being said, this is a case where I would definitely look at condo bylaws and insurance (since it occurred there - in a public area?), her own insurance policy, and (especially if the other person continues to press), the opinion of a lawyer. Depending on insurance especially, she may well be on the hook for that $9k, or she might be able to get it covered under home owners insurance and just be out the deductible.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It is relevant because both parties need to ensure they are in control of their dog.

Do you understand the concept of contributory negligence?

Well do you have information that the other party wasn't in control of their dog? Since the OP emitted that then it is fair to assume that it was in control.

They clearly state that the dog was in a car and it immediately jumped out and attacked a small dog which collapsed its lung. No where in that small time space would there be enough time for anything else to happen. It is not like they were both walking and started attacking each other. The dog escaped from the car and went directly to the small dog. That is what we know and until the OP comes in and says the small dog was aggressive first then I'm not going to assume it was.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

A pet is not a car. There is no set point where you can just write it off and insist the animal be destroyed.

.

But is isn't a person. It is difficult but all animals have a monetary value.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

How so, the dog was let out the car and it attacked another dog. Not sure how much more information we need. And to add to that she has admitted the dog was aggressive when she got it only a year prior. That is pretty much a slam dunk case if it does go to court.

I am afraid I don't know enough about the event that lead up to the injuries. There are multiple scenarios that we don't know:

A) Her dog did all the attacking, both off leash
B) The other dog did the attacking, but lost the fight, both dogs off leash
C) Both dogs were attacking like crazy, both with injuries, both dogs off leash
D) Her dog did all the attacking, other dog on leash
E)the other dog did the attacking, but lost the fight, other dog on leash
F) etc.

There are lots of factors that go into this, that is what court is for and that is why it is often best to simply gather information and seek professional advice before ever declaring yourself responsible.

I think the question earlier about limits to what you are actually responsible for is reasonable. Your car has financial limits, your own injuries have established limits. Do dogs?

[Titan]

She should call her insurance company as soon as possible to give them notice of the potential claim. She should not discuss anything with the other owner until she talks to the insurance people. Paying for the injuries may negate her ability to make a claim but they will let her know for sure. If they do deny the claim she should speak to a lawyer.

Post here and ask for recomendations or

Try here: To (Law Society of Alberta) Contact Lawyer Referral

Toll free from anywhere in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Lower Mainland British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut: 1-800-661-1095

In Calgary: 403-228-1722

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Your friend should check their condo insurance policy. Some policies have coverage, dependant upon the facts of the "case" and the wordings of the policy.

To clarify, it's the condo owner's policy that hopefully has some liability coverage - not the Condo Board's

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Well do you have information that the other party wasn't in control of their dog? Since the OP emitted that then it is fair to assume that it was in control.

They clearly state that the dog was in a car and it immediately jumped out and attacked a small dog which collapsed its lung. No where in that small time space would there be enough time for anything else to happen. It is not like they were both walking and started attacking each other. The dog escaped from the car and went directly to the small dog. That is what we know and until the OP comes in and says the small dog was aggressive first then I'm not going to assume it was.

I have as much information as you. The difference is I understand that the information I have isn't enough to say this is a "slam dunk" if it goes to court.

Ok here is what was said:

Originally Posted by aaronck

Last Thursday returning from an outing, she opened the door to her car in her condo complex and before she could grab his collar, he jumped out and attacked a small dog up the road in her condo complex.

Let us see now:

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

dog was in a car and it immediately jumped out and attacked a small dog .

I would suggest that you adding in the immediately to make you position stronger is incorrect. The OP clearly said "up the road". Which implies that the dog had to go some distance to get to the other dog.


How can you ask me:

Well do you have information that the other party wasn't in control of their dog?

When you say:

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

No where in that small time space would there be enough time for anything else to happen. .

How do you know how long it took. 30 secs, 2 mins, 5 mins. You don't know.

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

it is fair to assume .

I'm not going to assume

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

To clarify, it's the condo owner's policy that hopefully has some liability coverage - not the Condo Board's

Yep, that is exactly what right. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I in no way would suggest that the Board's policy would respond.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

But is isn't a person. It is difficult but all animals have a monetary value.

True, but it isn't like there is a Red Book for dogs. Cars get written off when the cost to repair exceeds the value of the vehicle. Pets are cheap to buy, but emotional investment is worth a lot. However yes, a court could ultimately decide a $9000 vet bill is excessive and leave the pet owner to cover the difference if they so choose.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

True, but it isn't like there is a Red Book for dogs. Cars get written off when the cost to repair exceeds the value of the vehicle. Pets are cheap to buy, but emotional investment is worth a lot. However yes, a court could ultimately decide a $9000 vet bill is excessive and leave the pet owner to cover the difference if they so choose.

And that is the wild card.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Russic

Ah man that sucks. Sounds like your friend did pretty much all she could do, but in the end 1 mistake is going to cost 10k. My dog is also a rescue and while he has a bit of an aggressive nature to him while on a leash, it's never escalated beyond some growling and barking. I've thought about this kind of scenario a lot.

My dog is similar. She can be aggressive around dogs. She is small (I can pick her up with one hand) so if she did attack another dog she couldn't do much damage. I always walk her on leash and try to stay clear of other dogs. But of course some owners walk their dogs off leash and their dog doesn't always listen to them. So I do worry about the other dog defending itself (especially if it's a large dog) and seriously hurting my dog.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

True, but it isn't like there is a Red Book for dogs. Cars get written off when the cost to repair exceeds the value of the vehicle. Pets are cheap to buy, but emotional investment is worth a lot. However yes, a court could ultimately decide a $9000 vet bill is excessive and leave the pet owner to cover the difference if they so choose.

There isn't a judge in Alberta who would make this ruling. The laws in Alberta are pretty clear in regards to dog bites and if the vet says the dog can be saved then it will be saved and the person responsible for the dog bite will be liable to cover it.

How is vet bill excessive anyways? did the dog not have his lung collapsed? should the doctor cut the bill in half so it isn't excessive? Excessive means "more than necessary", so unless you can prove the vet is charging too much then it is absolutely necessary to save the dog's life.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

There isn't a judge in Alberta who would make this ruling. The laws in Alberta are pretty clear in regards to dog bites and if the vet says the dog can be saved then it will be saved and the person responsible for the dog bite will be liable to cover it.

Citation please.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Citation please.

You're the one making the claim that if a dog's vet bills are excessive then the responsible party won't be liable for all the damages.

Citation please?

Because Alberta law states a responsible party will be on the hook for all damages, and states no limits.

Do you have any case law that would suggest otherwise or there is a limit on damages to dogs where the dog will have to be put down because the vet bills are "excessive"?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

You're the one making the claim that if a dog's vet bills are excessive then the responsible party won't be liable for all the damages.

Citation please?

Really where did I say that?

Because Alberta law states a responsible party will be on the hook for all damages, and states no limits.

Do you have any case law that would suggest otherwise or there is a limit on damages to dogs where the dog will have to be put down because the vet bills are "excessive"?

You should read this:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/c27.pdf

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Really where did I say that?

Uh you responded to Resolte14 with this

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

But is isn't a person. It is difficult but all animals have a monetary value.

No they don't. If a dog needs a 9k lung surgery to survive then a 9k lung surgery is what it will get.

You should read this:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/c27.pdf

Ok, and? That says nothing at all about what we are talking about, maybe post what you wanted me to read because I don't see anything relevant there.

[Titan]

I wish I was as sure about anything as Stark is about everything. Must be a nice world to live in.