Dog Bite Injury Lawyer Seeks Damages After a Vicious Attack by an
Employer's Guard Dog*
Case
Summary:
This is a review of a dog attack lawsuit which
required the
assistance of a dog bite injury lawyer. The plaintiff in this case had
been bitten
by a dog used to guard the property of her employer.
The woman had
tried to reach an agreement with her employer's insurance company to
recover her medical bills, but those negotiations
repeatedly failed to
produce a settlement.
Seeing that progress was unlikely outside of
court, the woman
retained a dog bite injury lawyer and filed suit against her employer.
Statement of Facts...
Sylvia Oth was employed as an accounting clerk by
Plas Ford in
Medford Oregon. She normally began her workday at 9:00 a.m. but on
January 3rd, 2010, she came in at 7:00 a.m. to finish a report which
was due by the end of the day.
When
she arrived, she parked in employee parking which was located
at the back of the dealership.
Also at the back of the dealership was a
fenced in area where many of the higher value new vehicles were stored.
This fenced in area was guarded by a German
Shepherd which had been
sold to the dealership by a local security firm. The dog had been
trained to be aggressive and protective of the area in which it was to
be fenced.
As she exited her vehicle, Oth heard what sounded
to her like an
animal growling. When she turned around, she was confronted by the
guard dog. The dog immediately jumped up and knocked the woman’s
keys and coffee from her hand. At the same time the dog bit the
woman’s right hand.
Oth tried using her arms to fend off the
dog’s attack, but her efforts were to no avail. The dog
continued to jump up and bite her, primarily on her wrists
and
forearms.
At about this time one of the dealership’s
mechanics drove up
and saw the dog attacking Oth. He jumped out of his car and
grabbed a
monkey wrench he had in his glove compartment. Without hesitation, he
began flailing away at the dog making every attempt to distract the dog
long enough for it let go of the woman. After being hit several times
on its snout, the dog ran off.
Once the dog ran off, the man immediately turned
his attention to
Oth. She was bleeding
profusely and was in shock. He attempted to
comfort her while simultaneously calling 911. Minutes later the
paramedics arrived. They treated her at the scene and transported her
to the local hospital where she remained for 7 days.
While at the hospital, Oth was treated with
antibiotics,
diazepam to aid in sleeping, and demerol for pain. Oth's injuries
needed several skin grafts to correct, and after being released from
the hospital, she required the services of a full time nurse to change
her bandages and dressings.
Oth attempted
to negotiate with her employer's insurance company but
to no avail. With mounting bills, she hired a dog bite injury lawyer
specializing in dog attacks and sought restitution.
The Lawsuit...
Oth’s dog bite injury lawyer contended that the
dog had been
able to attack Oth because it had escaped from its pen through a hole
in the fence. Oth's attorney went on to contend that Plas failed to
take appropriate precautions to keep the guard dog confined.
The
dog’s escape, Oth contended, was foreseeable, and Plas should be
held liable for the injuries Oth suffered.
Prior to the trial, Oth’s dog bite injury lawyer
took the
deposition of one of the janitors who was employed by Plas on the date
Oth was attacked. During his deposition, the janitor testified part of
his duties was to feed the guard dog and make sure the area inside the
pen was kept clean.
He stated he began to notice on or about December
1st there was a small gap inside the south corner of the fence. It
appeared to him the dog had been using his paws and snout to pry a gap
in the fence.
At first he didn’t think too much about it, but by
the second
week he became concerned because the gap appeared almost large enough
for the dog to escape through.
Rather than reporting the gap to his
supervisor he looked inside the auto
parts room and located some broken
pieces of wood. With the pieces of wood he fashioned a crude, but
what he believed to be effective cover for the gap in the fence.
Thinking the makeshift repair would last indefinitely, he said nothing
about it to his immediate supervisor or any other employee.
In its defense, Plas agreed that the dog had
seriously injured Oth,
but it denied any negligence,
and as a result contended it should not
be held liable for her medical costs and other compensation.
Plas
stated it had no notice of the gap in the fence, and without notice
it could not be held liable. Plas contended the janitor’s
failure to communicate the gap in the fence to either a supervisor or
even a fellow employee relieved it from liability.
Plas went on to state the dog’s attack was not a
foreseeable
event. Plas contended it took all reasonable and prudent precautions to
insure the safety of its employees.
Plas produced evidence the fence
was built only 12 months before the attack, and was made of maple with
metal reinforcements, with each column spaced 6 feet apart and sunk
into concrete. Although empathetic of its employee’s injury,
Plas adamantly denied
liability.
Outcome...
After
hearing the evidence presented and the arguments of the dog bite injury
lawyers,
the Court found for the plaintiff Oth.
The Court found Plas breached
its standard of reasonable care. The Court went on to state the
dog’s escape was a foreseeable harm. The Court would not permit
Plas to use the janitor’s lack of communication about the gap in
the fence as a vehicle within which it might escape liability.
The Court awarded to Oth the amount of $40,800 in
actual damages and
$200,000 for pain
and suffering. Plas filed its Notice of Appeal.
Important
Points...
- Employers will be held liable in
most circumstances for the actions of their
employees. The employer should be ever-vigilant of the
activities on
its property.
Unless an employee actually commits a crime, an employer
will almost always be responsible for the commissions or omissions of
its employees, and employers should exercise every reasonable
precaution to maintain proper communications with its employees.
- Predicting a "foreseeable harm"
is part of maintaining a standard of
reasonable care. The Court recognized this defendant’s
standard
of reasonable care was insufficient. Simply predicting and recognizing
a possible harm may be enough to thwart the serious bodily
injury or
death of an employee.
|
|
*This
case example is for educational purposes only. It is based on actual
events although names have been changed to protect those involved. Any
resemblance to real persons or entities is purely coincidental.
|
Return
from Dog Bite Injury Lawyer to Dog Attacks
Return
from Dog Bite Injury Lawyer to Personal
Injury Settlement Guide
The accuracy of information on this site is not guaranteed. Information on this site is strictly opinion and should not be considered formal legal advice. Under no circumstances should the information on this site be used to make decisions about the proper course of a legal matter. Click below to read our full User Agreement, Disclaimer and Copyright Information.

|