Published on:

Bite us once, shame on the dog

Bite us once, shame on the dog; bite us repeatedly, shame on us for allowing it. Well, as the saying goes. Based on a rep who happened to have followed a case, a father commenced an action on a court, individually and on behalf of his four year old daughter, seeking damages for injuries sustained by his daughter when she allegedly was attacked by a dog owned and/or harbored by the maternal grandfather of the complainant’s daughter and his lady partner. Per court record, the lawyer added, the four year old child was alone in a room with the dog, a Husky-Rottweiler mixed breed dog, when family members who were in an adjoining room heard the dog growl and heard the four year old crying. When the family members entered the room, the daughter had a gaping laceration on her nasal bridge and multiple puncture wounds on her face. Although the actual incident was without witness, the court had concluded that there was an issue of fact whether the dog inflicted the injuries sustained by the four year old daughter, particularly in view of the medical records indicating that the four year old child was treated for a dog biteas a result of the incident.

According to the report, the Supreme Court established an issue of fact whether the grandfather and his partner knew or should have known that the dog had any violent tendency. The lawyer relayed that the record established that, “a week or two” before the incident, the dog bit the hand of another grandchild. Although the bite did not require medical attention, the grandfather was informed that the dog had bitten his grandson. Another issue of fact was established by the Court with respect to the lady partner of the grandfather upon her knowledge of the past incident. The record had established that the lady partner and the grandfather resided together for 10 years, trained the dog together, shared the responsibility for taking the dog to the veterinarian, harbored the dog in their home and had equal control over the dog. Thus, it was required by the court to evaluate the credibility of the lady partner concerning her denial of knowledge of that dog bite. Moreover, the source stated that, the father’s attorney presented the written testimony of the grandfather in which he stated that it was their usual practice not to leave a four-year-old child alone in the room with the dog, and any common man would infer that the grandfather and his lady partner had knowledge of violent tendency on the part of the dog, resulting in that practice.

On a final issue established by the Supreme Court, the thing mentioned was whether the grandfather and his lady partner both were owners of the dog or whether which one of them had sole ownership of the dog. He said that, per record by the Court, although the dog was unlicensed at the time of the injury, the dog lived for nine years in the home occupied by both of them. He further added that, the grandfather took the dog to the veterinarian on occasion and the father testified at his testimony that the dog was “controlled by the grandfather”, and that “you couldn’t walk in the house unless the grandfather was is in the houseā€¦” Thus, the Supreme Court had ordered for a summary judgment for both, the grandfather and the lady partner for causing injury.

Represented by an inexperienced lawyer in court may cost you time and money particularly of cases such as above. New York Injury Attorneys will help you make it through all the lawsuit problems that you may encounter. New York Attorneys will be there by your side guiding you in every step of your case.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates with its New York Injury Lawyers has been around Metropolitan New York area for quite some time with very well-located offices around New York. Stephen Bilkis & Associate will represent you towards their finest capacity and offer you the likelihood of generating your claim and winning your case.

Contact Information