Dog Bite Case Where Plaintiff Sustains Multiple Facial Wounds*

Defendants Nikki Brooks and Lorne Bester have been romantically involved for a long time and co-own Deija's Café. The plaintiff, Dunne Thauberger worked at the café as a waiter.

A few months later defendant Brooks was working at Deija's. Defendant Bester came by and tied his dog Ghost (a 110 pound Weimaraner) up to a post outside the café.

Brooks visited the dog outside and left for supper. Plaintiff Thauberger decided to take break. He went outside to talk to Bester and pet Ghost. The dog licked Thauberger's hand, but when he got down on one knee and rubbed his head, the dog growled and attacked, biting his face and arm.

Brooks testified in this dog bite case that she didn't own the dog and Bester verified that. Public records checked indicated Bester as the sole owner. Brooks did walk Ghost and take him running.

Brooks and Bester stated the dog wasn't vicious, was playful, had never attacked anyone and they hadn't received complaints about his behavior.

In this dog bite case plaintiff Thauberger offered proof that defendant Brooks was the dog's owner. He provided evidence that the vet clinics Ghost visited had Brook's home address as Ghost's place of residence and that she told the vet clinic she was the dog's owner.

The vet further indicated the dog tried to attack and bite him and the technician. Defendant Bester told the vet Ghost had bitten him before and he'd needed stitches.

As a result of this incident, the dog was euthanized. The vet clinic only does this when the owner approves it.

The plaintiff offered further evidence from a dentist experienced with dog bite cases. The expert examined a blemish on Bester's arm and concluded it was from a dog bite and similar to the scar on plaintiff Thauberger's arm, the result of Ghost's attack.

The court decreed Deija's Café owed no duty to the plaintiff when he was bitten, as the incident happened outside the café.

They further stated a dog owner may be held liable for an injury inflicted by his animal if the plaintiff proves the dog has a vicious nature and the owner knew about it. There is no such thing as a dog owner being entitled to one free bite.

There were too many issues of fact raised by this dog bite case, such as how much control defendant Brooks had over the dog, whether she owned it or not and if the dog was vicious and she should have known that.

Plaintiff Thauberger was awarded punitive damages and the defendants were ordered to appear for a pre-trial conference to deal with the issues of fact.