Dog Bite Case Where Plaintiff Sustains Multiple Facial Wounds*

This is a review of a dog bite case. The plaintiff in this case was severely bitten when she attempted to pet a dog in a café where she was dining. The café in question was well-known for its permissive attitude towards patron's dogs, and it wasn't unusual for dogs to be on the premises.

After several failed attempts to reach an agreement with both the owner of the dog and the owner of the café, the woman filed a lawsuit. The suit sought to recover the cost of the woman's medical bills as well as an award for her pain and suffering.

Statement of Facts...

On the morning of December 3rd, 2010, at about 10:00 a.m., Nikki Brooks was waiting for her check after finishing her meal at the Waterman Café. While she was waiting, another patron passed by with his dog. The café had a generally laid-back atmosphere, and patrons often brought their dogs in with them. In this case the patron had brought in a 110-pound Weimaraner which he had securely leashed.

As the dog passed, Brooks leaned over to pet it. As she did, the dog reared its head back and bit Brooks in her face. She suffered serious lacerations, contusions and bruises to the front of her face and her left ear.

Paramedics were called and Brooks was rushed to the local hospital. Brooks required nearly thirty stiches to her face and ear, and she remained in the hospital for two weeks. Once released, she required another three weeks of recovery time at home.

After recovering, Brooks made every reasonable attempt to negotiate an out of court settlement to this dog bite case with the dog’s owner and the café. The dog’s owner had few assets. Believing he was about to be sued, he filed for bankruptcy. The café’s insurance company and the woman were unable to agree on a settlement amount. The woman retained a personal injury attorney and filed a lawsuit against the café.

The Lawsuit...

In her lawsuit, Nikki Brooks contended that the café's owner, the Thauberger Corporation, had failed to protect her from a vicious dog attack and that Thauberger breached the “standard of reasonable care” which should have been available to all its patrons. 

She contended this standard of care was breached when Thauberger permitted dogs to enter the café, and this breach constituted negligence.

Brooks's lawsuit admitted that she was aware patrons brought their dogs to Thauberger’s café, but, it stated, the dogs were normally leashed on the railing outside of the eating area.

Brooks through her suit sought the following damages and resultant compensation:

• Her medical bills
• Her out of pocket expenses (including prescription and over the counter medicine, and other items required for her treatment)
• Her lost wages
• Her pain and suffering

Brook’s medical bills, referred to as 'Hard Costs' amounted to $45,500. She was an hourly worker and her lost wages amounted to $3,500. Her out of pocket expenses for medications, ointments and creams amounted to $500. Her lawsuit asked for actual damages in the amount of $49,500, and $250,000 for pain and suffering.

The defendant Thauberger swiftly filed its answer in this dog bite case. In its answer Thauberger conceded it did not have posted anywhere in their café a notice which prohibited dogs from coming past the railing and into the eating area. 

However, Thauberger stated it had been doing business at that same location for 12 years. During that time it was common knowledge to its patrons dogs were to be leashed outside the railing, but that sometimes patrons did bring their dogs into the eating area.

Thauberger produced and entered into evidence credit card receipts showing Brooks had eaten at their café at least 16 times during the preceding 12 month period. 

Thauberger contended Brooks was therefore aware dogs often came inside the railing into the eating area. Thauberger was unable to locate any complaints Brooks made about dogs being anywhere on the café’s premises.

Thauberger further contended if Brooks felt any apprehension or fear about dogs being in close proximity to her or other patrons, she could have either complained, or more importantly decided not to eat at the café. 

Thauberger went on to state Brooks, by continuing to return, “assumed the risk"...

"Assuming the risk" or the "assumption of risk" is a legal concept that often comes up in dog bite cases and other personal injury lawsuits. 

If a person "assumes the risk" then they have decided on their own to engage in an action they know is risky or dangerous. If they are later injured or in some way harmed during the activity, they cannot hold anyone else liable for their fate but themselves.

In this case, Thauberger claimed that Brooks knew the risks of being around the patrons' dogs, and she chose to continue doing so any way.

Thauberger tried to further bolster their defense by stating in the 12 years it had been doing business at that location no one filed a report complaining of a dog attack. 

Thauberger stated that without previous complaints there was no "foreseeable harm," and therefore didn’t find it necessary to take affirmative precautions to prohibit dogs from entering into the café’s eating area.

Outcome...

After listening to all of the evidence presented in this dog bite case, by the plaintiff Brooks and from the defendant Thauberger, and after listening to the final arguments of their attorneys, the Court found in favor of the plaintiff Brooks and against the defendant Thauberger. In rendering her verdict the Judge stated in part:

"Although the plaintiff may have known there were dogs which frequently went past the café’s front railing and into the eating area, and as such knew there existed some potential for danger, the plaintiff’s decision to continue eating at the café cannot be viewed as an assumption of the risk. 

It would mean the owners of dangerous animals could not be held liable for the injuries their animals might inflict on the public. 

We cannot accept a dog owner’s plea of not knowing his dog’s potential for aggressive behavior. There is no ‘one bite law’ before an owner is deemed to have notice of the assaultive tendencies of her dog. Relieving the dog owners of their responsibility for the actions of their animals, especially those dogs which are known to have the potential to inflict serious bodily injury or death, would be wholly improper. 

Allowing those dog owners to escape responsibility would have a ‘chilling effect’ on parents of children, the elderly, and other members of the public who would merely deign to pet a dog."

The Court awards the plaintiff the amount of $49,500 for her actual damages, and $100,000 for pain and suffering.