Legal Question in Personal Injury in Florida

Re: dog bite

You can proceed against his home owners insurance for the medical bills and damages. Contact an attorney asap. aj

Re: dog bite

You or your wife as guardians of your daughter have the right to present a claim for physical damages and the scarring that will develop as well as medical costs. No doubt, your father in law has a homeowners insurance policy that will cover his monetary responsibility. My firm concentrates in personal injury matters if you would like further information. We handle matters throughout the state.

Re: dog bite

Yes. You definitely have recourse against your in-laws and/or their homeowner's insurance company. This is treated like any personal injury lawsuit and should be handled on a contingency basis by a lawyer.

I strongly recommend that you meet with an attorney and discuss your options. There should not be any charge for the initial consultation.

Scott R. Jay, Esq., 305-249-8000

Re: dog bite

Yes, your family has legal recourse against the dog owner and if the dog owner/homeowner has a homeowner's insurance policy, such policy would likely cover the damages arising from the injuries suffered by your daughter. Based on the facts set forth in your question, you have a strong dog bite case. First, concentrate on having your daughter receive the proper medical attention, which may include psychological counseling relating to such a traumatic experience. Second, focus on retaining the right lawyer. Our firm specializes in these types of cases and I have the added advantage of having previously worked on behalf of insurance companies that defend these types of matters, giving our firm additional insight into the handling and successful prosecution of dog bite cases. Your case is governed by certain Florida Statutes and legal precedent that any attorney you may meet with should explain to you in detail. The case should be handled on a contigency fee basis, meaning that you should not have to pay the attorney any money or costs unless there is a recovery, and further, you should not have to pay for an initial consultation. Since a lawsuit may be filed if the claim is not resolved pre-suit, and such lawsuit would be against a family member, it is important for you to note that the claim would be covered by the homeowner's insurance carrier as stated earlier. In other words, the money would ultimately come from the carrier, not your father-in-law. This is an important point that may minimize a rift or tension within the family, which occurs quite frequently in matters of this nature. If you wish to speak with me regarding your case, please call our office at 305.445.0937. I hope your daughter's injuries heal as best as possible.

Re: dog bite

Your daughter�s injuries sound severe, so first, make sure she receives all the medical attention she needs, and a professional therapist to help her talk through this. This will be an emotional case so I would also like to speak to you further as well as you will be the legal guardian.

Legally, the doctrine of �strict liability,� would likely apply. Strict liability means that responsibility is imposed on a person who carries on certain activities that present an unusual risk to the public at large. Because certain activities create a higher than normal risk to society, persons who engage in such activities carry a higher than usual burden of responsibility for any consequences thereof.

The doctrine is based on the notion that liability should be placed on those who are in the best position to control risks of harm that arise from their activities. For example, a person who keeps a wild animal may be liable for any harm caused by these activities, whether or not that person exercised due care under the circumstances or not. More specifically however, the Florida Legislature has made owners of dogs strictly liable for all injuries or property damage they cause, regardless of the owner's due care in maintaining them, and without regard to the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities. In your case the owner had knowledge of the dog�s vicious nature or propensity to attack, and therefore it sounds like there may be justification for seeking punitive damages as well.

Several statutes impose this liability. The general dog injury statutes are �676.01 through �767.04, of the Florida Statutes and imposes liability on a dog owner for all damages flowing from a dog bite that the plaintiff has suffered while lawfully (i.e. not trespassing) in a public or private place.

Usually, The dog bite statute specifically exonerates an owner who, at the time of injury, has displayed in a prominent place on the premises an easily readable sign, including the words �bad dog, � �'Beware of Dogs,� or some similar legend, as long as it puts a visitor on notice that there are dogs on the premises that may bite. However, a �bad dog� sign is not a defense if the victim is under the age of six or if the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner. Since your daughter is only 2, this will not be a defense but I recommend you take pictures of the outside of the house anyway, showing the presence or absence of such a sign.

I agree with my colleagues that the most likely treasury to proceed after would be the homeowner�s insurance policy. In that situation, the dog owners/father-in-law�s insurance company will step-into his shoes and defend the case for him.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future at (305) 769-3000.

Warm Regards,

Randall L. Gilbert, Esq.

Re: dog bite

Your daughter�s injuries sound severe, so first, make sure she receives all the medical attention she needs, and a professional therapist to help her talk through this. This will be an emotional case so I would also like to speak to you further as well as you will be the legal guardian.

Legally, the doctrine of �strict liability,� would likely apply. Strict liability means that responsibility is imposed on a person who carries on certain activities that present an unusual risk to the public at large. Because certain activities create a higher than normal risk to society, persons who engage in such activities carry a higher than usual burden of responsibility for any consequences thereof.

The doctrine is based on the notion that liability should be placed on those who are in the best position to control risks of harm that arise from their activities. For example, a person who keeps a wild animal may be liable for any harm caused by these activities, whether or not that person exercised due care under the circumstances or not. More specifically however, the Florida Legislature has made owners of dogs strictly liable for all injuries or property damage they cause, regardless of the owner's due care in maintaining them, and without regard to the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities. In your case the owner had knowledge of the dog�s vicious nature or propensity to attack, and therefore it sounds like there may be justification for seeking punitive damages as well.

Several statutes impose this liability. The general dog injury statutes are �767.01 through �767.04, of the Florida Statutes and imposes liability on a dog owner for all damages flowing from a dog bite that the plaintiff has suffered while lawfully (i.e. not trespassing) in a public or private place.

Usually, The dog bite statute specifically exonerates an owner who, at the time of injury, has displayed in a prominent place on the premises an easily readable sign, including the words �bad dog, � �'Beware of Dogs,� or some similar legend, as long as it puts a visitor on notice that there are dogs on the premises that may bite. However, a �bad dog� sign is not a defense if the victim is under the age of six or if the damages are proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner. Since your daughter is only 2, this will not be a defense but I recommend you take pictures of the outside of the house anyway, showing the presence or absence of such a sign.

I agree with my colleagues that the most likely treasury to proceed after would be the homeowner�s insurance policy. In that situation, the dog owners/father-in-law�s insurance company will step-into his shoes and defend the case for him.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future at (305) 769-3000.

Warm Regards,

Randall L. Gilbert, Esq.