Dog Attack- Liability question

[aaronck]

Summary-
My friend adopted a dog last year from the Humane Society, and it turns out it has aggression issues with other dogs (lots of barking/ lunging). She took it though training with the Humane Society, then took it to Dogma and signed up for specialty classes with Dogma for dogs with this issue. The dog is never off leash because of these issues, but seemed to be improving until...

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. The dog was badly hurt and she took the dog/owner to emergency, paid the $1500 bill, and surrendered her dog the next day. She's paid a few smaller bills since, but can't afford much more, and asked to be told before authorizing any more bills as she can't afford it.

The owner texted this morning and stated she was back at the vet, the dog has a collapsed lung, and the bill would be $9000, or the dog needed to be put down. I believe she has done what she can, has been contrite, but will be put into financial difficulties for this, and what would surely be forthcoming bills.
The owner has threatened to lawyer up a few times now, is this a small claims matter? Legal issue? The dog has never attacked like this before, and is never at large otherwise.

[photon]

I don't think people have the right to not be put into financial difficulties. They just may have to pay over a longer period of time.

[dissentowner]

The owner of the dog attacked has every right to sue for any medical expenses caused by your friends dog. If I were your friend I would want to be talking to this vet who is claiming it costs 9000 dollars to fix a lung, that part sounds like a possible scam.

[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.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think the fact your friend knew for at least a while that the dog they adopted had aggression issues, means that they need to accept full responsibility and pay all the bills.

The minute I took the dog home and it started behaving like that, I would have brought it right back to the humane society. Sorry, but later dude. Why would someone want that in their home?

What type of dog was it?

[Arya Stark]

Your friend is 100% liable, whether it attacked before or not.

I feel for your friend, but if that was my dog getting attacked because of your friend's negligence I know I would feel a little less sympathetic.

She should own up to her mistake because as many dog owners know some dogs are precious to their owners and they deserve to do whatever possible to not put the dog down.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Your friend is 100% liable, whether it attacked before or not.

I feel for your friend, but if that was my dog getting attacked because of your friend's negligence I know I would feel a little less sympathetic.

She should own up to her mistake because as many dog owners know some dogs are precious to their owners and they deserve to do whatever possible to not put the dog down.

I am inclined to agree that there is some liability on the owner, but I don't think we have enough facts to say it is 100% that person's fault.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am inclined to agree that there is some liability on the owner, but I don't think we have enough facts to say it is 100% that person's fault.

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.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am inclined to agree that there is some liability on the owner, but I don't think we have enough facts to say it is 100% that person's fault.

I think the issue is that 'fault' and 'problem' are not the same things.

That said, sorry OP but I think your friend is screwed.

It seems as though she tried to do something positive by taking on a rescue dog, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[aaronck]

Thanks all. He was a 30lb mutt, think of the grinch's dog, but sadder. It's been a tough week, and won't get any easier. As a dog owner on and off for 20 years, I've honestly never considered having to cover 10s of thousands of dollars in vet bills for something like this. I assume its more than most dog owners could afford.

[Misterpants]

Holy crap, 9K vet bill is insane.

[undercoverbrother]

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.

We don't know about the other dog.

Was it on a leash?
Was it running around on public land?
Was it confrontational?

There is information we don't know.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think the issue is that 'fault' and 'problem' are not the same things.

That said, sorry OP but I think your friend is screwed.

It seems as though she tried to do something positive by taking on a rescue dog, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Locke, I agree. However, it you isn't your fault or only partially your fault then it either isn't you problem or all your problem.


I agree it looks bad for the OP's friend. That is why I hope she reads her condo policy.

I think you would also agree that there is not enough information to call things a "slam dunk".

[RedMileDJ]

"Paging Sliver."

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

We don't know about the other dog.

Was it on a leash?
Was it running around on public land?
Was it confrontational?

There is information we don't know.

totally irrelevant questions. even if the dog was unleashed and on public land it doesn't give another dog the right to attack it.

if she didn't feel like she was 100% responsible and the other dog deserved some blame she wouldn't have already paid the medical bills.

[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.

[ken0042]

What does personal liability cover on your homeowner's insurance?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

totally irrelevant questions. even if the dog was unleashed and on public land it doesn't give another dog the right to attack it.
.

Nope they are relevent questions.

if she didn't feel like she was 100% responsible and the other dog deserved some blame she wouldn't have already paid the medical bills

There are a fair number of people that don't know/understand the law and concept of negligence. Her feeling responsible does not by default mean she is responsible.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ken0042

What does personal liability cover on your homeowner's insurance?

it isn't cut and dry. It depends on the wordings/company.

Some companies will cover this type of situation.


Iggy's dad speaks about this type of thing:

http://iginla.ca/dogbite.html

Who is financial responsible for my dog bite injury claim ?
Dog bites are generally covered by the owner’s home insurance policy and therefore when owner of the dog is notified that the victim of the dog bite injury and incident is seeking a claim for damages, they merely need pass the notice / statement of claim to their home insurer who will then assign an insurance adjuster to handle claim. It is well worth noting that even if the dog bite incident occurs outside of the home, that the dog owner’s home insurance policy should still respond to any claims made arising out of a dog bite incident.

He also speak to liability........I wonder what he says:

The standard is in favour of the person who is bitten by the dog and since it need only be proven that the dog bite(s) injury occurred for this liability to apply. In spite of the strict liability imposed by Alberta law with regards to dog bites, the person who was bitten or their guardian at the time of the incident if they are a minor may be found partially liable or contributory negligence for the dog bite injury. This occurs and is dependent upon a set of circumstances that concludes under which the dog bite occurred, there is a caveat -some of the more common set of circumstances are a person provoking the dog or the guardian of the minor failing to properly supervise the minor, thus contributing to the occurrence of the dog bite injury.

In short it is not cut and dry

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Nope they are relevent questions.






There are a fair number of people that don't know/understand the law and concept of negligence. Her feeling responsible does not by default mean she is responsible.

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).