Check out some similar questions!

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 08:36 AM

On March 23 at 7 pm, my neighbors dog pulled my puppy under the fence and tore him up. My puppy, Mister Leo Toupe, wound up with 14 stitches in 4 places and a broken shoulder blade. The police and animal control are involved but say that they cannot make them pay for the bills. I feel my neighbors should and everyone keeps telling me to take them to small claims? Is it worth it or will the judge say the same thing... they're not responsible?

The hardest part for me is to see how cold these people are. Never once came to see if Leo was OK, never apologized (I know they don't have to but come on). If it was the other way around, I would have been calling their vet or pet ER giving them my Credit Card and telling them to charge whatever it takes.

Thank you.

aliseaodo · Apr 3, 2012, 09:41 AM

Just to let you know, I have NO legal experience what so ever, but who's fence is it? Were both dogs in their own yards?

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 09:55 AM

My fence, both dogs in their own yard. The way Mister Leo was ripped open and where his shoulder was broke, you can tell his was pulled under the fence. They had on their side of the fence t the bottom, one of those crisscross fences (I can't spell the word sorry- the start with a L) anyway, that fence sliced his stomach in 2 place. 1 under his armpit (broken shoulder blade arm - 6 stitches, plus some under the skin) and the other on (almost through) his abdomen (4 stitches). Then on his backside you have puncture wounds from their dogs teeth. Upper right leg (2 stitches) lower left leg (2 or 3 stitches).

The neighbors son was outside when I heard my puppy screaming and he crawled over to us.He said nothing to me. The woman told the cops she heard everything. Her husband said they saw everything (he wasn't home). I took photos and you can also see that their dog was digging and you could see where the accident happened because Leos little paws were smeared all over their fence.

AK lawyer · Apr 3, 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by mskerijjas

... one of those crisscross fences (I can't spell the word sorry- the start with a L) anyway, ..

Woud it be "lattice" perhaps?

It will be a close case if you take it to court. You should have

made a fence which their dog couldn't get through.
more carefully watched your pup.

They should have

not had a viscious dog,
and stopped the dog immediately when it attacked your pup.

It will be a judgment call.

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 04:48 PM

Thanks. And yes - it is lattice.

Our fence rises in certain areas in the yard and so we board them up . Their dog always fence fights which knocks over our boards. It was like that when we bought the house. After what happened, we are planning to put lattice around our side of the fence so he can't get out at all.

Close case meaning - a waste of my time? I think, if anything, they could pay something.

Seriously, if it was the other way around, no questions asked.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on the subject.

Alty · Apr 3, 2012, 04:56 PM

If it were me I'd take it to small claims court. The fact is, your dog was in a fenced back yard, and their dog pulled him to his side of the fence and injured him.

Take pictures of the fence, where the incident occurred, where their dog has been digging, and make sure you have all the medical bills, and pictures of your dog after he was injured. Your vets testimony (a notarized letter), stating the extent of the injuries, and his/her opinion on what caused that injury, will help.

Bottom line. Your dog didn't deserve this, and they're dog is responsible for the injuries that occurred. As the owners of their dog they are responsible to pay for any injuries that dog causes.

If you have a police report then take that to court too.

Small claims court isn't too costly, so even if you lose, you won't be out very much, but I personally think you have a very strong case. But then, I'm not a legal expert. I have however had friends that had similar things happen, and they won in small claims.

I don't think it would be a waste of time, win or lose.

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Alty

If it were me I'd take it to small claims court. The fact is, your dog was in a fenced back yard, and their dog pulled him to his side of the fence and injured him.

Take pictures of the fence, where the incident occurred, where their dog has been digging, and make sure you have all the medical bills, and pictures of your dog after he was injured. Your vets testimony (a notarized letter), stating the extent of the injuries, and his/her opinion on what caused that injury, will help.

Bottom line. Your dog didn't deserve this, and they're dog is responsible for the injuries that occurred. As the owners of their dog they are responsible to pay for any injuries that dog causes.

If you have a police report then take that to court too.

Small claims court isn't too costly, so even if you lose, you won't be out very much, but I personally think you have a very strong case. But then, I'm not a legal expert. I have however had friends that had similar things happen, and they won in small claims.

I don't think it would be a waste of time, win or lose.

Thank you! Before and after photos.

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 05:11 PM

Was a day away from 4 month and weighed 5 1/2 pounds.

Alty · Apr 3, 2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by mskerijjas

was a day away from 4 month and weighed 5 1/2 pounds.

OMG! That poor baby.

I have to ask, and I hope that I'm not opening even more wounds. It was your use of the past tense "was a day away from 4 month", that made me gasp. Did he make it?

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Alty

OMG! That poor baby.

I have to ask, and I hope that I'm not opening even more wounds. It was your use of the past tense "was a day away from 4 month", that made me gasp. Did he make it?

He is doing good but we have to have him locked up most of the day so he doesn't keep hurting his shoulder. Because of where he had to have stitches they couldn't brace is arm (they tried but it got infected). That has to be one of the hardest things for us, is keeping him locked up...

I should have said.. "At the time of the accident" It just happened March of this year.

Alty · Apr 3, 2012, 05:35 PM

I'm so very sorry, and I truly hope that you take this to small claims. I have to state again that I'm not a legal expert, and I doubt that any legal expert can tell you what the outcome will be, but I do think it's worth pursuing.

Please let us know the outcome, and give an extra hug to your little baby from me. I'm glad that he survived this. That's the most important thing in the end. :)

AK lawyer · Apr 3, 2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by mskerijjas

... Close case meaning - a waste of my time? I think, if anything, they could pay something. ...

No. By close, I mean the liablity is uncertain. I don't know if the judge will find they are liable or not. But it's all or nothing. If the court rules that they are liable, and that your negligence didn't contribute to the pup's injuries, you would be awarded all of your expenses.

However, in some jurisdictions, contributory negligence may prevent you from getting a judgment in your favor. In others, comparative negligence may reduce your recovery in proportion to the percentage you are found to be at fault.

Alty · Apr 3, 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

No. By close, I mean the liablity is uncertain. I don't know if the judge will find they are liable or not. But it's all or nothing. If the court rules that they are liable, and that your negligence didn't contribute to the pup's injuries, you would be awarded all of your expenses.

However, in some jurisdictions, contributory negligence may prevent you from getting a judgment in your favor. In others, comparative negligence may reduce your recovery in proportion to the percentage you are found to be at fault.

AK, I'm not trying to rock the boat, I'm just curious, and I also want to know if I missed something.

I don't understand how any judge wouldn't see the negligence of the neighbor. Both dogs were in their own fenced yards. There's lattice on the bottom of the fence to fill the gaps. The OP's dog was dragged under the fence by the neighbors dog. The OP's dog suffered severe injury as a result of this.

I realize that it depends on the judge, but I don't see how the OP is negligent, or how any judge could find the OP at fault for anything other then letting her dog into her fenced yard, assuming he'd be safe. The injuries are entirely the result of the OP's dog being dragged under the fence by the neighbors dog. Is that not enough? And if not, then why? How could the OP be found negligent.

I'm just curious because that scenario makes no sense to me at all. Could you explain?

Fr_Chuck · Apr 3, 2012, 06:01 PM

First of course the police and animal control can not make them pay, since that is not their job.

But where I see the issue is that the fence must have had obvious places where the dog could get though, how did the one dog get thought the fence to grab the other dog to drag him though, or was the injured dog partially though the fence to be able to be grabbed.
If the injured dog partially went onto the other side, to be able to be grabbed, I would have a hard time finding fault there myself.

For example if my cat stuck its head in the fence and my neighbors pit bull got it, my cat crossed the property line.

AK lawyer · Apr 3, 2012, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Alty

AK, I'm not trying to rock the boat, I'm just curious, and I also want to know if I missed something.
...
but I don't see how the OP is negligent, or how any judge could find the OP at fault for anything other then letting her dog into her fenced yard, assuming he'd be safe. ...

You said it: "assuming he'd be safe". Obviously he wasn't safe. He was injured. So that assumption was incorrect, wasn't it?

Additionally, the fence, which belongs to the OP I understand, failed to keep the other dog from attacking OP's dog.

As I say, it's a close case. But these factors could, I suppose, be considered negligent by the judge.

Another thing to understand: they are not people, they are dogs. From a legal viewpoint, normal considerations of acceptable behavior don't apply to animals. Instead, it's a matter of determining whether the people were being reasonable in predicting the behavior of the animals.

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 06:21 PM

It shouldn't make a difference.. but I know it does.

Their dog was digging under the fence to get at our dogs. My oldest dog is 80 pounds and my youngest is 5 1/2. He stuck his head under and pulled him through. Their dog is about 65 -75 pounds.

Alty · Apr 3, 2012, 06:23 PM

Chuck, I do understand that, and I agree, but, I saw a case a while back (yes, it was Judge Judy, so not necessarily a reliable judicial source) where a dog got it's paw stuck in the fence. The neighbors two dogs literally ripped the plaintiffs dogs leg right off. Now, the plaintiffs dog was obviously digging, got it's paw stuck. But, the defendants had to pay, even though the judge (Judy) said that she really didn't believe that the defendants dogs were violent. To her it was an animal reacting to another animals predicament. In the wild there would have been two options for the stuck dog. Stay stuck and die of starvation, or get you unstuck by ripping off your leg, and give you at least a snowballs chance in hell to survive. Still, despite all of that, and despite the fact that the plaintiffs dog was partially to blame, since the plaintiffs dog was the only one injured, and the defendants dogs were the cause of the injury, the defendants had to pay.

Last year our dog Chewy dug under our fence (despite many barriers we've put up to prevent this), and got into our neighbors yard. While in our neighbors yard he dug in their flower garden. We paid for the ruined flowers, and paid to repair the fence, because our dog caused the damage, even though the fence is on the property line, and not only our responsibility to maintain.

I guess I'm just being emotional about this. I just don't understand how the neighbor isn't 100% responsible, even if the OP's puppy met the neighbors dog half way, their dog still did the damage. The neighbors dog is not hurt. Shouldn't they have to pay for the injuries their dog caused?

Alty · Apr 3, 2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by AK lawyer

You said it: "assuming he'd be safe". Obviously he wasn't safe. He was injured. So that assumption was incorrect, wasn't it?

Additionally, the fence, which belongs to the OP I understand, failed to keep the other dog from attacking OP's dog.

As I say, it's a close case. But these factors could, I suppose, be considered negligent by the judge.

Another thing to understand: they are not people, they are dogs. From a legal viewpoint, normal considerations of acceptable behavior don't apply to animals. Instead, it's a matter of determining whether the people were being reasonable in predicting the behavior of the animals.

I do understand and agree with what you're posting. But, there is a but. ;)

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. From what the OP wrote it was the neighbors dog that dug under the fence. As a dog owner, and an owner of a digger, I know that the only way to totally secure your dog is to dig around 5 feet under the fence and cement it. Not very realistic. Or leash your dog even when it's in an enclosed yard.

I guess the only question I have left is whether the OP has a chance at winning in small claims court, and if she does, will the options I gave her help? What will it take, or does it all depend on the judge?

Again, not trying to rock the boat, but to me this was a clear and cut case. If I were the judge, I'd be awarding the OP her damages.

AK lawyer · Apr 3, 2012, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Alty

...
I guess I'm just being emotional about this. I just don't understand how the neighbor isn't 100% responsible, even if the OP's puppy met the neighbors dog half way, their dog still did the damage. The neighbors dog is not hurt. Shouldn't they have to pay for the injuries their dog caused?

Consider what I wrote a few minutes ago about the difference between human liability and dog behavior.

The law doesn't apply human ideas of morality to animals. The owner of the aggressive dog is not strictly liable for the harm caused by his or her animal. There are circumstances under which a defendant can be "strictly liable" (liability without any sort of fault). But I don't think that applies here.

It's not what we call an intentional tort (assuming they didn't intend for their dog to cause the injury). It is a matter of negligence. And negligence turns not on the moral culpability of the animal (In a philosophical sense, animals are amoral.), but rather upon the reasonableness of the animal's owner.

mskerijjas · Apr 3, 2012, 06:30 PM

[/QUOTE]
Last year our dog Chewy dug under our fence (despite many barriers we've put up to prevent this), and got into our neighbors yard. While in our neighbors yard he dug in their flower garden. We paid for the ruined flowers, and paid to repair the fence, because our dog caused the damage, even though the fence is on the property line, and not only our responsibility to maintain.

[/QUOTE]

I feel the same way!! I even said that to the guy next door.