New Jersey Accident and Injury Law Blog : New Jersey Injury Lawyer & Attorney : The Grossman Law Firm : Serving Monmouth County, Bergen County

A family in Illinois is finding out just how hard an insurer will try to avoid having to pay out in a dog bite incident. The insurer, Illinois Farmers Insurance has filed suit this week to avoid paying compensation to the victim of a dog bite attack.

The dog bite here occurred in July last year. The victim Chloe Pluger was bitten by a dog belonging to Gary and Sharon Lindstrom. Chloe's father Matthew Pluger filed a lawsuit against the Lindstroms. The lawsuit sought to recover compensation for injuries that Chloe suffered in the dog bite attack. However, Farmer’s Insurance refused to cover the injuries. 

The basis for this was that Chloe's mother had been dating Lindstrom's son when the dog bite occurred. The insurer alleged that for months before the dog bit Chloe, and for two weeks after the dog bite, they had all been residing in the same house belonging to the Lindstroms. According to the insurer, their dog bite policy specifically excludes members of the same household from liability.

To those not familiar with the kind of measures that insurers can adopt to avoid having to pay out compensation to injured victims, this means that the Farmer's policy excludes Chloe because she had been living at the Lindstrom's residence when the attack occurred.

As this case shows, you can expect an insurance company to try everything possible to avoid having to pay out compensation even in a simple dog bite case where liability is apparent.   I don't know much about the injuries that Chloe suffered here, but in case of a severe dog bite, victims may be looking at heavy medical expenses that could leave them in severe financial distress if the insurer refuses to pay out.

Scott Grossman is a dog bite attorney in New Jersey representing victims of dog bites in Monmouth, Ocean, Passaic, and Bergen Counties, and across the state of New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a New Jersey dog bite lawyer, I often see how victims are subjected to blame and accusations of negligence or even aggression, when they have been subjected to a vicious attack by a dog. While I admit that there may be cases of provoked dog attacks, very often these attacks can happen with little provocation.

A 5-year-old girl in Plymouth, Pennsylvania is looking at spending several weeks in hospital after serious throat injuries in a dog bite attack. The girl was bitten at the Maple Acre Farms establishment by a German Shepherd that belonged to the proprietor of the establishment. The dog was apparently unleashed, and walking about the property freely. The girl was bitten on the neck, and left with serious injuries. She suffered severe damage to her vocal chords, a punctured larynx and has also undergone a tracheotomy. This little girl is currently hooked on to a ventilator.

The dog owner has admitted to police that his dog had been involved in bite attacks earlier. In fact, records show that the dog has bitten people on at least three previous occasions. In the most recent attack, the dog ended up almost biting off the victim’s ear.

There seems to have been nothing that the little girl here did to provoke an attack. She had seen the dog on previous visits to the property, and had even petted it earlier.  Her mother says they had no reason to believe the dog could turn vicious, because it was walking about freely, and unleashed.  They had no way of knowing that the dog had been involved in other attacks before.

This little girl is looking at not just up to a month in hospital, undergoing extensive treatment for her mutilated throat and neck, but also a lifetime of trauma and fear because of this attack. In New Jersey, I often find that we are too quick to blame victims of dog bites without knowing all the facts. Many times, dogs that are involved in bite attacks have been involved in attacks earlier, and owners have failed to leash their dogs properly.  While no one is blaming the dog here, to any New Jersey dog bite lawyer, it would seem that the owner of the German Shepard was extremely negligent in letting a dog with a history of aggression walk about freely, and unleashed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Alliance for Rabies Control and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention marked World Rabies Day on the 28^th of September.

Fortunately, the US has been free of the canine rabies virus since 2007, mainly due to mandatory vaccinations and licensing standards. However, even though dogs may not contract the virus from another dog, they may still be at risk of contracting the virus from skunks, raccoons and other carriers, which is why owners are still required to vaccinate their dogs.

Although rabies may not be a major issue after a dog bite, you will still need basic first aid for the wound.  You may also need antibiotics, and your doctor may also recommend a Tetanus shot. In case of a child dog bite victim, it's best to seek immediate medical attention. This is especially true if the dog bites are located on the face, head or neck. If the dog can be traced to an owner, vaccination records will show whether it was vaccinated or not. However, in case of a dog that attacks and flees the scene with no owner nearby, and no way of tracing the owner, then your doctor may suggest a rabies vaccine.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 4.5 million people every year suffer dog bites. One in five of these will be injured severely enough to require medical treatment for their injuries.   Not surprisingly, children are at a higher risk of serious injuries in a dog bite attack.  Adults aren’t completely safe either. In August, an elderly couple in Georgia was mauled to death by a pack of dogs owned by a single owner.

In New Jersey, dog owners are liable for any damages caused by a dog bite involving their pet, even if their dog has never previously showed any signs of being dangerous or vicious.

Scott Grossman is a New Jersey dog bite lawyer representing dog bite attack victims in Monmouth, Bergen, Passaic and Ocean Counties, and across New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The owner of the pit bull accused of terrorizing the community by biting five people in one day told a Parsippany New Jersey Municipal Court Judge that his dog had been provoked by passers-by.

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.

It is important to understand the differences in New Jersey’s laws pertaining to the municipal court’s role after a dog bite in declaring a dog “vicious” vs. declaring a dog “potentially dangerous”. The requisite standard of proof that the municipal court judge must follow in both situations requires a finding by the court by what is called “clear and convincing evidence”.  The main difference in the statute would be that if a dog had killed or caused “serious bodily injury” to a person it would be deemed vicious but if the dog caused “bodily injury”  to a person and poses a serious threat of bodily injury or death to a person, or poses a threat of serious bodily injury or death to a person it shall be deemed potentially dangerous. It is important to note that if the dog was provoked then the provocation would be a defense to the court’s declaring a dog either vicious or potentially dangerous. The municipality shall bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that the dog was not provoked. 

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks