While running across an area in dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant as to whether it was community property or private property, the Plaintiff client’s minor child was severely bitten on the leg by the Defendant’s chained German Shepherd Mix. Resultantly, the child required several surgical procedures. The Defendant’s lawyers hired by his insurance company refused to provide a reasonable settlement offer. They argued that the dog was properly confined within the laws of the county and municipality, that the child had trespassed onto the Defendant’s property, that the Defendant had posted appropriate “Beware of Dog” signs along the front of the property, and that the Defendant had no prior knowledge of the dog’s aggressive behavior, since there were never any formal charges or convictions against the Defendant for violating dangerous dog statutes. Due to opposing counsel’s recalcitrance, Plaintiff attorneys contracted with CPT. Unfortunately, a first-hand behavioral evaluation of the dog was impossible, since the Defendant had the dog euthanized several months after the incident.
- Nevertheless, by utilizing case files, transcripts, interviews with witnesses, and interviews with neighbors combined with a thorough review of pertinent statutory law, case precedent, statistical data, and animal behavior research, a CPT expert analysis and concomitant affidavit was able to convincingly support the client’s/Plaintiff’s arguments that:
- Based on two acknowledged unreported bites, the Defendant had prior knowledge (scienter) of the dog’s unprovoked aggressive behavior,
- The Defendant was aware of the dog’s known propensity to behave aggressively toward neighbor children,
- The Defendant failed to exercise due diligence to protect the public,
- Chaining the dog increased the probability that the dog would act upon its known aggressive propensities,
- The Defendant’s actions were legally negligent- since information was readily available in the public domain that chaining increased the probability of aggressive behavior- similarly, information was available in the public domain that many counties and municipalities had concomitantly statutorily prohibited chaining due to the risk chaining presented to the public,
- The chained dog potentially posed an attractive nuisance to the young child,
- There is information in the public domain that German Shepherds and German Shepherd Mixes, in comparison to the average domestic dog breed, have a higher probability of acting aggressively and a higher probability of inflicting severe or lethal bites,
- Lack of proper care on the part of the Defendant could have contributed to the dog’s aggressive propensities,
- The Defendant was aware that neighbor children frequently used the disputed common area,
- The Defendant should have been aware that the length of the dog’s chain allowed the dog to have contact with children who frequently walked or ran within the disputed area,
- Shrubbery between the undisputed private property of the defendant and the disputed common area obstructed the small child’s view of the dog and created a hidden trap,
- “Beware of Dog” signage was not conspicuously placed where it was visible to a child using the common area,
- Georgia civil case precedent has determined that a young child is considered unaware of the concept of trespass,
- The shrubbery may have heightened the dog’s territorial aggressive behavior,
- The child running may have heightened the dog’s barrier frustration, territoriality, and/or predatory aggressive behavior,
- The Defendant failed to reduce exposure to known potential risks by properly confining the dog,
- The Defendant failed to reduce risks by commencing any form of obedience or behavioral training, and
- The size, depth, and severity of the bite did not correspond to the level of threat rationally posed by the child and was the maladaptive act of an unstable, poorly managed dog.