Under What Circumstance Can You 'sue' Someone

[BMAK]

this must sound like the dumbest thing to many people on here but here it goes haha

when it comes to anything legal i have no clue i am young and keeping up with legal proceedings in't my cup of tea to follow, this isn't happening to me nor am i sueing anybody but i would like to have some back ground info because i visit parks a lot where other people have been attacked recently, if it were to happen about irrisponible dog owners and attacks as such.

Can you Sue for these, and if so under what circumstances for all?

*if a dog attacks a human unprovoked, human gets hurt blood is drawn?

*Dog bails up human unprovoked, no one is hurt?

*Dog attacks human provoked, human gets hurt?

*Dog attacks another dog, unprovoked, dog gets hurt, what happens?

*Dog attacks another dog unprovoked, dog doesn't get hurt? MAIN one wanted

"Affending dog owner is around to see all"

these may sound higgilty piggilty but some one smart can answer i would be most appriciated.

Edited May 26, 2011 by BMAK

[Guest Willow]

This might sort of help.....or not

We were talking in class one day about general good manners around other dogs & people, and one client told the class about an incident that happened to them.

Their *insert typcally gentle family dog here* bolted out the front door & down the driveway one morning. It made no contact at all with a lady walking her dog on the path, but startled her. In her panic, she tripped over her own dogs leash & fell over & broke her arm, and successfully sued the family for $30,000.

[BMAK]

This might sort of help.....or not

We were talking in class one day about general good manners around other dogs & people, and one client told the class about an incident that happened to them.

Their *insert typcally gentle family dog here* bolted out the front door & down the driveway one morning. It made no contact at all with a lady walking her dog on the path, but startled her. In her panic, she tripped over her own dogs leash & fell over & broke her arm, and successfully sued the family for $30,000.

OUCHH! woah keep stories coming would hate to be in that position!

[Aidan3]

Just stay away from those parks. Regardless of whether you have the right to sue or not, that won't protect you or your dog.

[SezzNJunebug]

Their *insert typcally gentle family dog here* bolted out the front door & down the driveway one morning. It made no contact at all with a lady walking her dog on the path, but startled her. In her panic, she tripped over her own dogs leash & fell over & broke her arm, and successfully sued the family for $30,000.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it sad that even something purely accidental and out of your control could cost you so much? Why do so many people have a sense of entitlement these days!

I agree with Aidan2. Best to avoid these situations altogether

Edited May 26, 2011 by Sezz

[Guest Willow]

Their *insert typcally gentle family dog here* bolted out the front door & down the driveway one morning. It made no contact at all with a lady walking her dog on the path, but startled her. In her panic, she tripped over her own dogs leash & fell over & broke her arm, and successfully sued the family for $30,000.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it sad that even something purely accidental and out of your control could cost you so much? Why do so many people have a sense of entitlement these days!

I agree with Aidan2. Best to avoid these situations altogether. Yes you may be able to sue later but there is some damage that cannot be fixed with money.

It was a nutty accident....but I don't know any other details....for example, I don't know if the lady's career was ruined by he damaged arm (professional musician???? surgeon??? etc). There may have been a lot more to the story we were never told, but the family were quite philosophical about it, and their warning to the rest of the class was "Just don't ever allow your dog to p*** someone else off!!!!"

[Staranais]

I agree Sezz, I find it very sad. The owners should have their dog under control, I'm not disputing that, but it's just sad that some people seem to jump at the chance of blaming others so they can milk every little misfortune for all it's worth.

I heard a story a few years back about a woman who tripped on the steps outside a shop in America, just from being a klutz, and twisted her ankle a little - and she was immediately hustled inside where an employee of the shop offered her a considerable sum of money if she'd sign something agreeing not to sue them. I hope we don't get that bad over here.

[Aidan3]

I heard a story a few years back about a woman who tripped on the steps outside a shop in America, just from being a klutz, and twisted her ankle a little - and she was immediately hustled inside where an employee of the shop offered her a considerable sum of money if she'd sign something agreeing not to sue them. I hope we don't get that bad over here.

I agree, that sort of thing is really distasteful. Having been on the other end when my wife was a passenger in a head-on collision, I can fully understand claims for fair compensation though. Because the driver of the other vehicle had either had a stroke or had died prior to the accident, he was not deemed to be negligent, and therefore the MAIB would not accept liability for compensation (only critical medical care and some rehabilitation). We settled out of court for less than even the immediate financial cost from loss of income, let alone any future care she may require.

My dogs are on my home-owners insurance. Every dog owner should speak to their insurance company or agent about this. It's easy for even a small dog to injure someone.

[SezzNJunebug]

I guess I find it sad because that could happen to anyone really! It would only take 1 second for your dog to get away from you to startle someone! Even if your dog is under control 99% of the time. As mentioned before we don't know the full details, dog could of been wildly out of control or the lady could of lost a lot of money through not working.

I really really hope we don't get as bad as that last story either! It makes me sad how greedy people get

Edit to add:What an awful thing to go through Aidan2

Sorry to put your thread so off topic

Edited May 26, 2011 by Sezz

[RubyStar]

My dogs are on my home-owners insurance. Every dog owner should speak to their insurance company or agent about this. It's easy for even a small dog to injure someone.

Do you mind me asking what they cover and how much extra roughly it costs?

[iltby]

Their *insert typcally gentle family dog here* bolted out the front door & down the driveway one morning. It made no contact at all with a lady walking her dog on the path, but startled her. In her panic, she tripped over her own dogs leash & fell over & broke her arm, and successfully sued the family for $30,000.

Is it just me or does anyone else find it sad that even something purely accidental and out of your control could cost you so much? Why do so many people have a sense of entitlement these days!

Yes...unbelievably depressing. $30,000 could send someone into bankruptcy. Why on earth would you do that to someone over a reasonably harmless freak accident?

[StarLapyz]

you could try suing for any of the above, whether you would win, or get any money out of it really boils down to how good your lawyer is, how good their lawyer is, the circumstances of the case, how good a witness you are, how good a witness they are, how the judge is feeling on the day, what he had for breakfast and the alignment of the stars.

Litigation is completely unpredictable in my experience and the relative damage from something like you describe is highly subjective so could go any which way.

nice idea bout adding them to the public liability insurance under you home policy though.

[Keira&Phoenix]

To be honest if you have heard about dogs at your local or regular park attacking humans or dogs I would be refraining from visiting that park anymore. Whether you can sue the person or not, whether you win all come into play, but in the end is it worth the pain and suffering of you or your dog to continue visiting the park? Probably not.

[ness]

Litigation is expensive and mostly to be avoided at all costs. Its not a pleasant experience for either side. Put it this way you wouldn't go suing somebody unless the monetary damage was significant.

[Alkhe]

Just had a look at the NSW Companion Animals Act, which is the legislation which outlines liability for dog attacks. This part is what you're looking for -

This section relates to injuries to people:

25 Liability for injury to person or damage to personal property

(1) The owner of a dog is liable in damages in respect of:

(a) bodily injury to a person caused by the dog wounding or attacking that person, and

(b) damage to the personal property of a person (including clothing) caused by the dog in the course of attacking that person.

(2) This section does not apply in respect of:

(a) an attack by a dog occurring on any property or vehicle of which the owner of the dog is an occupier or on which the dog is ordinarily kept, but only if the person attacked was not lawfully on the property or vehicle and the dog was not a dangerous dog or restricted dog at the time of the attack, or

(b) an attack by a dog that is in immediate response to, and is wholly induced by, intentional provocation of the dog by a person other than the owner of the dog or the owner’s employees or agents.

(3) This section does not apply in respect of a police dog or a corrective services dog.

(4) This section does not affect the liability apart from this section of any person for damage caused by a dog

And this section relates to attacks on animals:

27 Liability for injury to animal

(1) The owner of a dog is liable in damages in respect of injury (whether or not fatal) to another animal (whether or not a dog, but other than vermin) caused by the dog attacking or chasing it.

(2) This section does not apply in respect of:

(a) a dog attacking or chasing another animal on any property or vehicle of which the owner of the dog is an occupier or on which the dog is ordinarily kept, but only if the dog is not a dangerous dog under this Act at the time of the incident, or

(b) a dog attacking or chasing another animal in the course of droving, tending, working or protecting stock, or

© a dog attacking or chasing another animal where the attacking or chasing is in immediate response to, and is wholly induced by, intentional provocation of the dog by a person other than the owner of the dog or the owner’s employees or agents, or

(d) a dog attacking or causing injury to another animal, where its doing so is in immediate response to, and is wholly induced by, an attack on the dog made by the other animal.

(3) This section does not affect the liability apart from this section of any person for damage caused by a dog.

In plain english, the owner of the dog isn't liable if the attack is in immediate response to, and is wholly induced by, intentional provocation of the dog by a person other than the other of the dog.... Which may give you some comfort, however it would be EXTREMELY difficult to prove that the attack was WHOLLY induced by an intentional provocation. If somebody wanted to sue you for this, they could. Eg, if your dog attacked them due to them unintentionally provoking them, say they had no idea what they were doing, or didn't expect the dog to respond in the way that it did.. you're not in a good position.

Same goes for attacks on dogs.

The next section of the legislation discusses 'contributory negligence', which in a nutshell means that if the person injured is found to have contributed in some way to the attack, they bear some of the responsibility for it.

I'd echo what everybody else said though - I'd steer clear of this park! And steer clear of litigation at any cost. It's horrible, expensive, time consuming, and will sap you of energy and goodwill towards people, guaranteed!

Edited May 26, 2011 by Alkhe

[BMAK]

oh deffinatly, i have one DA dog and one social dog, the mean dog stay's well away from any off lead areas partly because of the what if's, we are going to leave this park alone my girl and myself don't need to be put in any harm. i wouldn't have the conscience to sue someone that much money for an accident, hell i would be bankrupt lol 30 k is a lot of money to a single person.

that last post helped a lot thank you, it is always good to know what you can and can't do and to know what to avoid :D ta

[Nekhbet]

when you 'sue' someone you go through civil court which is a totally different thing to criminal courts.

technically you can 'sue' someone for anything. If your dog chases mine, it falls over whilst being frightened and hurts itself, then I get so upset I have a nervous breakdown, I can sue you if my legal reprisentation can blow it up to fit the parameters of a civil suit.

Luckily those that preside over civil courts are not as mental as the Americans are so we don't tend to do it that often.

[Mystiqview]

One thing to also think about.

Do YOU have they money to pay THEIR legal costs etc if YOU lose?

How far do you want to drag your family through the stress of legal procedings.

YOu are going civilly. You have to then rely on them paying up. The old saying "you cannot get blood from a stone".

You may be perfectly right. You may be IN the right. but sometimes the "Cost" to "you" can be greater than what it is worth.

I would be talking to your solicitor...

[RuralPug]

I typed out a long, thoughtful detailed reply and lost it in cyberspace. Woe is me, I am upset. I should sue Hewlett Packard and Microsoft...

IMO the brief answer to your question:

Under what circumstance can you sue someone? - Whenever you can convince a legal team to present your grievance in court. The only things you have to "prove" is that you have suffered loss (physical damage/financial loss/emotional suffering) and that the entity you are suing is responsible for that loss and should compensate you.

Legally, if someone eneters your yard and trips over your garden hose, they can sue you for damages. You have left a "hazard" in their path.

If they fall over because your pooch is running joyously to greet them and they run in terror, they can sue you for damages. You have allowed your pet to appear out of control and trigger flight instinct - another public hazard.

The US has become an extremely litigious society and I fear that the rest of the Western World may follow suit, but to date Australian law as interpreted by and large by our courts makes me believe that if you take due and reasonable care (in the placement of your garden hose and in the management of your pets) you won't be faced with huge penalties.

Due and reasonable care includes having millions of dollars of Public Liability Insurance (most home insurance policies include that) just in case.

It also includes taking further steps to prevent hazard if you have been given any reason to believe your pet could startle someone (doesn't have good recall for instance).

If you have a dog that is, or appears, agressive, it would be prudent to take extra steps to prevent him/her becoming a higher-risk hazard.

[Lambo]

In addition to any cause of action provided under statute (which will differ from State to State/Territory), your ability to sue in the circumstances you have identified generally rests on the law of negligence. The sentiment expressed by others that you can basically sue anyone for anything is an overgeneralisation but I suspect broadly accurate. Unfortunately (in my view), the law fails adequately to reinforce a sense of self-responsibility. This encourages most people to always point the finger at someone else rather than simply accept that sometimes sh*t happens or that whatever happened was their own fault. The deficiencies in the legal system itself then force most defendants (properly advised) to settle matters rather than litigate them purely because it is often cheaper to pay something than to run a trial. It is a truism that in litigation more often then not even if you win you still lose. By this, I mean quite simply that even if you win the case often times the cost of the trial cannot be fully recovered - meaning you will generally still be out of pocket.

That said, to succeed in a negligence claim you need to establish the existence of a duty of care, the breach of that duty, and damage. You must also establish that the damage you say you sufferred was caused by the defendant's breach of duty, and that the damage was not "too remote" (in effect, that it was reasonably foreseeable).

Generally speaking, I think it can be readily accepted that a person who has charge of a dog (this means anyone looking after it at the relevant time, whether or not the owner) will be held to owe a duty of care to others to protect them from reasonably foreseeable risks - eg the risk of an attack. The "foreseeability" aspect of this argument might be challenged (not necessarily successfully) in relation to a dog with no history of violence, but would be easily demonstrated in relation to an animal with a known violent past or tendency or breeeding.

Breach of duty will not always be easily proved in relation to the situations you have posited. For instance, there is a world of difference between a dog that is properly secured on a leash by its carer who reacts to a deliberate provocation from a third party, and a dog over which the carer exercises or attempts to exercise no real degree of control which initiates an unprovoked attack on another animal or person.

Proof of compensable damage is also not always a given. If you didn't suffer any loss or damage or injury recognised by the law, you will not succeed. This is significant for those who claim to suffer nebulous injuries like stress and anxiety - eg where the animal simply "bales up" a person but doesn't actually hurt them, or where one person merely witnesses an attack upon another person from afar. Generally speaking, these are not compensable unless they are accompanied by some physical injury or loss. The exception is where the psychological injury is recognised as a genuine (medically certified) psychiatric illness. The situation described by Willow in relation to the lady who was "startled" is not a case of purely pscychiatric injury because the circumstances involved actual physical injury to her person. The $30K apparently awarded to her would have been to compensate her not just for the pain and suffering that she experienced as a result of those injuries, but more likely than not also involved a degree of compensation for past and anticipated future medical bills, and past and anticipated future loss of income (due to necessary absences from work).

Issues like causation and remoteness cause their own problems. One example that readily comes to mind is the situation where a person allegedy suffers some psychological disorder because a dog growled at him/her in a dog park. Depending upon the context, a court might find that it is not reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal mental fortitude would suffer such a reaction. In that event, the claim might fail on the ground that the psychiatric injury was not caused by any identified breach of duty on the part of the defendant.

Even though Australia is no where as litigious as America, the Australian psyche is changing and more and more people are willing to sue. For my money, I would generally advise anyone who has neither the financial nor mental fortitude for a long and expensive legal battle to simply stay away from the legal system. Insurance is also recommended. I have taken out separate insurance which specifically affords $5M public liability insurance in the event that my dog attacks someone for this reason.

Please note that the above merely expresses my personal views and is not intended to constitute or be relied upon as legal advice. If you have a specifical legal issue you should seek independent legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner with reference to your particular circumstances.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Lambo