[mskerijjas]

Yes the fence is on the OP's property, but she did all she could (lattice under the fence) to prevent her dog from getting out of her yard.

The lattice is on their side of the fence. Their dog dug under it.

[Alty]

The lattice is on their side of the fence. Their dog dug under it.

So they put up the lattice? To me that's further proof that this is their responsibility. As the owner of a beagle/digger, I've taken precautions to keep him in our yard. He still manages to bypass those precautions, but when he gets out he doesn't hurt anyone, he just digs. But, the fact that the neighbor put up the lattice on their side of the fence just screams "I know my dog digs, I know it's an issue". To me (not a legal expert), that's another reason why I would take this to small claims. It's basically them admitting that their dog digging is an issue. This time the digging lead to injury of your dog.

Again... I have to say... I'm not a legal expert. I just think that you could and should win if you take this to small claims. I don't know if you will, and I don't understand why you wouldn't, but if it were me, I'd go for it. :)

[Alty]

Maybe we're approaching this the wrong way, or I'm totally out of my mind. ;)

I think the question we should be asking is what it's worth to the OP (original poster) to pursue this?

How much does it cost to file a claim in small claims where she lives? How much are the damages? If she loses in court, can she afford the cost to file a claim? If she loses, will it be worth trying to get back her expenses?

Bottom line, are any of us 100% sure that she'll lose? I'm not, but again, I'm not a legal expert.

[mskerijjas]

Quote
How much does it cost to file a claim in small claims where she lives? How much are the damages? If she loses in court, can she afford the cost to file a claim? If she loses, will it be worth trying to get back her expenses? Quote

I'm not sure the price of filing because I'm waiting for all of his medical to be done. He will get his stitches out Saturday and will also be looked over. I'm sure he will have to be back in another 2 weeks because they wanted us to keep him locked up for 1 month. (So his shoulder will heal)

[mskerijjas]

I am planning on it no matter what. I just want to make sure I have all the bills to take with me. Also, want it to surprise the hell out of them.

My sister thinks I shouldn't do it , so I won't be "that neighbor" but they are that neighbor and I say @$@% them. I probably wouldn't have been so offended if they would have just checked to see how he was or said they were sorry... but nothing. I know they don't have to but what kind of people are that cold. I call them robots but I think robots have more feelings then they do.

Thank you everyone for writing me back and giving me your advice. All I can do is hope the judge is an animal lover :-) and when they see Mister Leo Toupe's before and after photos they will want them bastards to pay as well.

[ScottGem]

All I can do is hope the judge is an animal lover :-) and when they see Mister Leo Toupe's before and after photos they will want them bastards to pay as well.

Getting an animal lover for a judge is not enough. To win a lawsuit, even in small claims court, you need to show negligence on the part of the defendant. And you need proof of that negligence.

You need to show they knew their dog would attack another dog, they knew their dog was digging under the fence and they saw their dog attack yours and did nothing. Unless you can prove those things, the judge may have no other choice but to dismiss your case.

And even if you DO win, you need to collect. The court does not collect for you. If they refuse to pay, you have to find where they work and garnish their salary or where they bank and attach their bank account.

I still think your best bet would be to file a claim with their homeowner's carrier first.

[joypulv]

25 years ago a neighbor's cat caught a fishhook in her mouth from a pole on my back porch (not easy, since it was way at the top and secure). My homeowner's paid some $ after a deductible, not the vet bill, because I was told that the cat was 'property' in the eyes of insurance companies.
I too agree that the neighbors may very well just refuse to pay any judgment against them. Small Claims judges don't spend a lot of time on he said she said and are often arbitrary and quick, so I think any predictions here are tough calls to make.
I would follow through on both avenues, even if the results are discouraging.

[AK lawyer]

...
I still think your best bet would be to file a claim with their homeowner's carrier first.

But, unlike an autombile accident, there is no way to make them disclose the identity of their homeowner's (or renter's) insurance carrier.

[ScottGem]

But, unlike an autombile accident, there is no way to make them disclose the identity of their homeowner's (or renter's) insurance carrier.

Some counties include that with deed information. But it might require a suit to get it.

[funmum22]

I would have to agree, I think with pictures and any reports you have your case is quite strong. It is your neighbor's responsibility that his dog does not damage anyone else's property and I think in this case it would be difficult to suggest that you were in any way negligent as your dog was confined to your property. If I saw this one on Judge Judy I think she would go with you.

[ScottGem]

I would have to agree, I think with pictures and any reports you have your case is quite strong. It is your neighbor's responsibility that his dog does not damage anyone else's property and I think in this case it would be difficult to suggest that you were in any way negligent as your dog was confined to your property. If I saw this one on Judge Judy I think she would go with you.

Judge Judy is TV law, not real law. Judy is more of a mediator than a Judge. While I would agree, the OP does not appear to have been negligent, its not her negligence that is at issue. She needs to prove the neighbors were negligent and that is not as easy as you seem to think it is.

Yes, if this were brought before Judge Judy she'd probably win, but in a REAL court of law, its not that strong a case.

[AK lawyer]

Some counties include that with deed information. But it might require a suit to get it.

Interesting. SCOTUS is currently considering whether the feds can require one to purchase health insurance. Do these counties require folks to purchase homeowners' insurance?

[ScottGem]

Interesting. SCOTUS is currently considering whether the feds can require one to purchase health insurance. Do these counties require folks to purchase homeowners' insurance?

No, but I've never seen a mortgage company that doesn't require it.

[mskerijjas]

We have homeowners insurance and we had to have it. I'm not sure if they own or rent their house.

I honestly never thought of going after their insurance company. I bet if I asked them that it might scare them into thinking their insurance would go up for them having a dog like that.

[ScottGem]

We have homeowners insurance and we had to have it. I'm not sure if they own or rent their house.

I honestly never thought of going after their insurance company. I bet if I asked them that it might scare them into thinking their insurance would go up for them having a dog like that.

If they rent they may have renter's insurance. If they renter, then the lanlrod's policy may cover.

I would definitely ask them for their insurance carrier.

[AK lawyer]

...
I honestly never thought of going after their insurance company. I bet if I asked them that it might scare them into thinking their insurance would go up for them having a dog like that.

That's why, if I were them, I would refuse to tell you whether they have insurance, and who the insurance carrier might be.

Back to the issue of the county having the insurance information: I still can't see how they could keep track of that info. It's none of their business. But they would have record (if they handle the title recording function; most do) of who holds the mortgage. So contact the mortgage company for the insurance info. Next question, would they disclose that info. Doubt it. They aren't liable, but they might view it as confidential.

[Alty]

You need to show they knew their dog would attack another dog, they knew their dog was digging under the fence

Scott, again, I don't want to rock the boat, and I'm not a legal expert, but I have to ask, because your above statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

How can you prove that they knew their dog was going to attack another dog? Just the sheer fact that it's a dog should be proof enough. You can't prove intention. Or am I way off base here? Does a dog have to have a past history of attack before it's held accountable for other attacks?

Also, as for knowing their dog was digging under the fence, doesn't the fact that they put up lattice on their side of the fence, prove that they knew he was a digger?

Just confused here. All dogs have the capacity to attack. It's in their nature, I know this, and I'm a dog lover! I don't understand why, or how, you could, or should have to, prove that the owners knew that their dog could attack. Just the fact that they own a dog should be proof enough, at least for me. Even a little teacup poodle can attack. My cousin lost a finger to my Aunt's dog. That dog weighed 1 pound soaking wet. All dogs have the capacity and the instinct to attack, under the right, or wrong, circumstances.

they saw their dog attack yours and did nothing.

I'm confused about this part too. Does that mean that if my neighbors dog attacks my dog, and I see it, but they don't, then they're not negligent? What if they're not home? Does that mean their dog can do whatever it wants, can dig under my fence, attack my dog, and because they didn't see it and stop it, I have to pay?

I realize that the law is stupid in many aspects, but I have to question why the OP has to jump through so many hoops when it's obvious, based on what she's written here, that the neighbors dog is at fault for these injuries. At least to me it is.

I'd just like an explanation, because none of this makes sense to me.

[AK lawyer]

...Just confused here. All dogs have the capacity to attack. It's in their nature, I know this, and I'm a dog lover! I don't understand why, or how, you could, or should have to, prove that the owners knew that their dog could attack. ....

Any human will attack too, under the right circumstances. But the issue is whether they knew that this dog was reasonably likely to make an (apparently) unprovoked attack upon another dog in a neighboring yard, under a fence. In other words, was it reasonable for them to leave the dog unsupervised, and not in a pen or on a chain. That's the fact question that's for a jury (or judge in small claims court) to decide.

... I'm confused about this part too. Does that mean that if my neighbors dog attacks my dog, and I see it, but they don't, then they're not negligent? What if they're not home? Does that mean their dog can do whatever it wants, can dig under my fence, attack my dog, and because they didn't see it and stop it, I have to pay? ....

Again, if they had reasonable cause to believe that the dog might have caused damage, they should have kept it in the house, or otherwise confined when they were gone.

[ScottGem]

based on what she's written here, that the neighbors dog is at fault for these injuries. .

And I agree, the DOG is at fault here. But a court of law has to decide whether the owners are at fault. Suing the dog is not going to get anywhere.

The basis of civil actions are torts. A tort is a civil wrong recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. There are 3 broad categories of torts, two of which concern us with this case; intentional and negligent. As you might expect an intentional tort occurs by direct and willful action of someone that results in damage to the injured party. A negligent tort occurs when someone's actions were unreasonable unsafe.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort)

So to win a lawsuit here the OP has to prove that the neighbors did something deliberately that caused damage to her pet or that the neighbors were negligent in not preventing it from happening. If we didn't have this requirement of proving a tort, the court system would be even more overtaxed than it already is.

[Quote=alty]Does a dog have to have a past history of attack before the owner is held legally accountable for other attacks?[quote]

I altered your question above slightly (see bolded part). The answer to that question would be yes.

Putting up the lattice might be and indication, but its not a slam dunk. Actually most lattice fencing is decorative rather than protective. So I'm not sure it would count.

If anyone's dog was to attack because the dog was allowed to roam free, then there could be an issue of negligence there.


You're right. Sometimes the law doesn't make sense. And don't confuse justice and the law. The law is supposed to provide justice but that doesn't always happen. Is it justice for the OP to have to pay for damages done to her pet by the neighbors? No, I don't think so. But did the neighbors act illegally here? I'm afraid there isn't enough for me to say they did. So I'm just not sure the OP could win a lawsuit here.

[Alty]

Thank you AK and Scott. I do understand what you're saying, and I now better understand why you think the OP may have a hard time with this case.

I still don't think it's fair, since her dog was injured because of the neighbors dog. Also, if it were me, I'd still try small claims on the off chance that she could win, which I think she should. But then, I'm not aware of how much it costs to file a claim in small claims. To me it would be worth it just so that the neighbors would know that they can't just ignore the things their property "and sadly a dog is property" does. I wouldn't care if I got a single cent, and I get the feeling that the OP feels the same way, that she just wants them to acknowledge her dogs injuries and their suffering.

But I do understand that the law isn't always fair, and it doesn't always make sense.

It just makes me sad, and mad. This little pup did nothing wrong other than be in his own yard.

One last question, just because this does intrigue and disturb me. Does the fact that the little dog that was pulled under the fence suffered from multiple stitches, pictures to prove it, and the fact that the neighbors dog was unharmed, add any "punch" to this case?

Sorry to keep asking questions. I just really need to understand why this is the way it is. I'm not questioning your answers. You're the legal experts, and I trust your expertise. It's just that to me, it's not only a stupid law, but an unrealistic one. I can't find one scenario where dog meets dog and a fight ensues, that would be provable in court based on the criteria that needs to be met. So why have any dog laws at all? Why not just let them go around biting, killing, maiming, destroying, with no consequences?