According to witnesses, a woman walked into the store with an extra large cat that not everybody instantly recognized as a bobcat. The animal was already antsy, what with all the pet dogs who had gathered with their owners for their photo shoot, and when it was placed on Santa's lap for the photo session, it bit his hand and wrist ferociously. Bebbington suffered a number of wounds that actually bled. As he said later, the cat had a vicious and strong bite, and if it had been a little child or baby instead of him, he or she could have ended up with a severed hand.

The woman who owned the exotic pet, apparently, walked away from the store after the incident, claiming that she had a license to keep the cat, and it had been through all its vaccinations. She didn't leave her name and address, and Bebbington is worried about the vaccination status of the cat. If he doesn't get in touch with her soon, he will have no choice, but to go ahead and receive painful rabies shots for the wounds.

PetsMart meanwhile, has stepped in to take care of his medical bills. Bebbington is no stranger to handling exotic animals for photo shoots. In his years of playing Santa, he says, he has posed with snakes, horses and a range of other animals, and never been attacked like this.
 

It's extremely fortunate that this animal attack incident was focused around an adult who has some experience handling animals. Bobcats can grow up to 50 pounds, and can pack a big punch in their jaws. The possibilities of what could have happened if the bobcat had panicked at the sight of all the people in the store and run amok, does not bear thinking of. With other people, including children in the vicinity, there was definitely a possibility for more injuries to result from this incident. The woman who owned the cat, apparently told people at the store before she left that she kept the cat on a dog lead in her yard, tethered for safety. How negligent is it to bring an animal that's normally leashed at home, to a public place with children around, and how irresponsible that she should leave without even asking if she could pay for Beddington's medical bills caused by her pet?

Building an Animal Attack Lawsuit

Fatalities and injuries from animal attacks are more common than we'd like. When a person is attacked by an animal, and suffers injuries, he can claim compensation from the owner of the pet, for his pain, suffering and physical disfigurement. Establishing liability in an animal attack case, whether it's a dog bite or a cat attack, can be difficult, and requires the experienced counsel of an experienced animal attack attorney. Contact a New Jersey animal attack lawyer for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.
 

Our sincerest condolences go out to her family.

Data released by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, 2% of the American population is bitten by a dog annually. That’s over 4.5 million people, and of those bitten by a dog, most of them are children between the ages of five and nine. And of those 4.5 million people who are attacked by a dog, 20% receive treatment from a medical professional, and 20 people suffer fatal injuries.

            As a dog bite attorney lawyer covering Freehold, Manalapan, Marlboro, Howell, Jackson, Paterson and all of central and northern New Jersey and know how physically painful and emotionally traumatizing a dog bite can be. The article cited above provides a lot of good information on how to handle dog bite attacks and how to care for the injury afterwards. Some important statistics cited are “In the US alone, nearly 5 million people are attacked by dogs per year, and 1,000 people go to emergency rooms per day as a result of a dog attack; many of them are children, and about half of them have been bitten in the face.” Dog attacks are a serious problem throughout the country and New Jersey is no different. I suggest reading the article several times so you can be well informed on what to do if a situation arises. I hope this information can be useful to your family and friends in helping to prevent dog bite attacks.

Of course when a highly publicized incident occurs, legislative officials often take swift action to introduce legislation that will attempt to minimize or avoid the likelihood of the same type of events occurring in the future. This undertaking may be borne out of a genuine concern for doing what an individual believes is the right thing to do or may be the result of political pressures or a combination of the two.   Unfortunately, portions of “Congo’s Law” would likely, in my humble opinion, place New Jerseyans in actual danger of additional vicious dog bite attacks while sparing the lives of dogs that have already attacked persons that resulted in serious bodily injury or even death.  Now don’t get me wrong, I want to be clear that I am a dog and animal lover. I believe wholeheartedly that animals should never be abused for purposes of someone’s warped entertainment and any individual intentionally abusing an animal should be fully prosecuted under animal cruelty laws.  However, common sense mandates that if a domestic animal attacks a human being resulting in serious bodily injury or death, now we put the risk of harming persons above the value of the animal’s life.  We cannot put the safety of our children or our loved ones at risk of physical harm in order to preserve the highest burdens of proof.  Most rational persons would agree that to grant animals the same rights as our citizens is purely absurd. Believe it or not, this in essence is what certain provisions of the Congo Law would require if enacted.  For example, under the current law if after an attack the dog is declared vicious by a municipal court judge, meaning it killed a person or caused serious bodily injury then the dog shall be destroyed in a humane manner. See N.J.S.A. 4:19-22.  The Congo law would allow the municipal judge discretion in allowing the dog to return home even if an attack occurred resulting in serious bodily injury or death and where it found that the dog is declared vicious.  Then the court would require its owner to obtain a special municipal vicious dog license, orange identification tag, a municipal registration number, and maintain liability insurance.

Under the provisions of Congo’s law, the municipal court shall declare the dog vicious if it finds that the dog “beyond a reasonable doubt” killed or caused serious bodily injury to a person and “poses a continuing or future serious threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person."  So in other words, the burden of proof in these proceedings will be changed to the highest burden of proof that is only used in criminal prosecutions.  Practically speaking, how can a judge determine “beyond a reasonable doubt” if the dog poses a future serious threat of serious bodily injury or death?   Yes, believe it or not these are some of the amendments that are actually in the bill. 

It is the existing laws that are codified in N.J.S.A. 4:19-17. et seq. that already require certain procedures to be followed by animal control officers and municipal courts after a dog bite attack occurs in order to determine whether or not the dog shall be deemed vicious or potentially dangerous that need to be better enforced. I find that often times after a dog bite attack, the victim and the community’s right to be safe are too often overlooked and the vicious or potentially dangerous dog is returned back to the owner only to hold the community and the victim hostage. All too often, the same dog is a recidivist which results in another future attack or attacks.  Now we have created more victim’s whose attacks could have been easily prevented had the law been properly enforced.

 The goal of amending the current laws to more clearly define the burden of proof by the municipal courts to demonstrate the dog wasn’t provoked makes sense however; Congo’s Law goes too far by placing future human life and liberty at risk of harm.  Maybe the only good to come out of Congo’s repeated attacks is that it will raise awareness to the public of the importance of strict enforcement of the procedural requirements by our municipal officials of the current dog bite laws.
       

As a New Jersey dog bite lawyer, I can say that many of my clients have been attacked by pit-bulls or mixed breeds that likely had some pit bull in them.  However, the attacks also occur from a multitude of breeds and mixed breeds. The leading studies also reinforce this data. 

It has been my experience that the more severe dog bite victims often endure severe puncture wounds, bone crushing or bone piercing injuries of the face, arms, head, legs or other body parts.  Unfortunately, often times it is not just the physical scarring that will endure but the emotional scarring that may have an even more detrimental permanent effect on the victim.    This may occur when the victim of a severe and brutal dog bite attack suffers emotional trauma in the form of post traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. 

The victims of severe dog bite attacks experiencing PTSD may lose the ability to cope with normal everyday situations.  For example; the victim may avoid many social situations for fear that a dog could be around.  Even a small non threatening dog could produce a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety to someone suffering from PTSD as a result of a dog attack.    This can be extremely debilitating and life altering.  The most severely affected dog bite victims will actually lose their freedom to just go for a simple walk around their neighborhood for fear of experiencing the horror once again. They relive the attack in their minds and something that may have lasted only a few seconds will seem like the longest moments of their lives. These victims endure their own “Vietnam War”. The PTSD can produce severe changes in the victim’s personality that may destroy their relationships and can even lead to the total breakdown of the family unit. 

After a severe dog bite attack if the victim begins to experience any of the above symptoms, receiving a proper diagnosis by a competent mental health professional is extremely important.  While ongoing long term psychotherapy may work well for some individuals, for others it is just too stressful and anxiety producing to re-enter the darkest and scariest moments of his or her life.       

Keep an eye out for future posts on this blog where I plan on revealing the problems with the laws in the state of New Jersey as they relate to the procedures that are to be taken by the authorities after a dog bite attack. My opinions are based on my experiences in representing victims of dog bite attacks in places like Paterson and Freehold as well as counties such as Bergen, Monmouth, Middlesex, Passaic and Ocean Counties.   

The owner of the pit bull appeared in court to plead not guilty to the three charges lodged against him for the April 2 2008 attacks by his Pit bull. The victims were treated and released from the hospital for mostly superficial bites. 

Municipal Prosecutor said the state intended to have the dog declared "potentially dangerous," which he said was the "proper, prudent thing to pursue" given the rampage the dog went on outside the Lake Hiawatha branch of the public library.

The judge said the dog owner was offering a defense, which is something for him to do at trial, and asked again whether he understood the potential consequences of a finding of guilty. The owner said he believed the township was seeking "to put the dog down."

That the pit bull will not likely be destroyed did not sit well with one of the victims, who attended the hearing. He described the horror of trying to pull the dog off another victim only to have the pit bull bite him on his leg before charging his 13-year-old daughter. "I want to tell the judge what I went through," he said. "Trust me, it's too dangerous."

Parsippany's animal control officer, said… "Our concern is for public safety and we don't want people mugged in the street by pit bulls -- and that's just what happened,"  As reported in The Star -Ledger.  Please read more.

The significance of the terminology between the court declaring a dog vicious versus declaring the dog potentially dangerous has nothing to do with the liability of the dog owner but it will determine the dog’s fate. That is if the municipal court declares a dog to be vicious, and no appeal is made of this ruling, the dog shall be destroyed in a humane and expeditious manner.  

 In New Jersey the fact that a dog attacked someone is sufficient to make the owner of the dog strictly liable for the injuries caused to the victim. We do not require the owner to have had knowledge of the viciousness of the dog before the dog owner shall be deemed liable.

I have reproduced the relevant New Jersey dog bite statutes below for your easy reference. Please feel free to browse my website at www.GrossmanJustice.com for more information concerning dog bite law in New Jersey. 

N.J.S.A. 4:19-16.  Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog
    The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in  a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of  the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by  the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the  owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

    For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner when he is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or 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 thereof.

4:19-22.     Dog declared vicious by municipal court; conditions 
    6.  a.  The municipal court shall declare the dog vicious if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the dog: 

   (1)  killed a person or caused serious bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(b) to a person; or 

   (2)  has engaged in dog fighting activities as described in R.S.4:22-24 and R.S.4:22-26. 

   b.   A dog shall not be declared vicious for inflicting death or serious bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(b) upon a person if the dog was provoked.  The municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked. 

   c.   If the municipal court declares a dog to be vicious, and no appeal is made of this ruling pursuant to section 9 of P.L.1989, c.307 (C.4:19-25), the dog shall be destroyed in a humane and expeditious manner, except that no dog may be destroyed during the pendency of an appeal. 

   L.1989,c.307,s.6; amended 1994,c.187,s.3. 

4:19-23  Dog declared potentially dangerous; conditions.

7. a. The municipal court shall declare a dog to be potentially dangerous if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the dog:

(1) caused bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person during an unprovoked attack, and poses a serious threat of bodily injury or death to a person, or

(2) severely injured or killed another domestic animal, and

(a) poses a threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person; or

(b) poses a threat of death to another domestic animal, or

(3) has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals.

b. A dog shall not be declared potentially dangerous for:

(1) causing bodily injury as defined in N.J.S.2C:11-1(a) to a person if the dog was provoked, or

(2) severely injuring or killing a domestic animal if the domestic animal was the aggressor.

For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked.

L.1989,c.307,s.7; amended 1994, c.187, s.4; 2002, c.24.

Read the article on InsuranceJournal.com.