A dog attack case in Texas that resulted in a jury verdict of $10 million demonstrates the key evidentiary issues that are critical in a dog bite case. In this tragic case, a ten-year-old boy was viciously attacked and killed by a pit bull. Critical evidence in dog mauling cases in Mississippi include past incidents of aggressive behavior by a dog or prior dog bites. The boy in the fatal Texas dog attack was visiting family friends when he was fatally attacked and mauled by the pit bull. Evidence was presented at trial that the dog had been involved in biting incidents on three prior occasions, including one involving the victim of the fatal pit bull attack. The trial also included evidence that the family friends that owned the dog had told the victim not to report the prior bite incident to his parents.
While any fatal dog attack is tragic, this incident is particularly upsetting because the defendants in the case had plenty of notice that their pit bull posed a potential danger. This constitutes the rationale for the traditional “one bite rule”, which is still the law in Mississippi. The designation of the rule as a one bite rule is somewhat misleading because it does not mean that a dog owner gets “one free bite” as it is sometimes described. The key to the one bite rule is that an owner should be on notice that one’s dog has a tendency to be aggressive or vicious. The one bite rule imposes liability on a dog owner that knows or should know that their dog has vicious tendencies. This means that if a dog has exhibited prior aggressive behavior, such as lunging, biting or similar behavior a dog owner can be liable for injuries caused in a subsequent dog attack incident.
A case like this one goes further and may even justify punitive damages. The dog owners not only had sufficient evidence of the pit bull’s violent tendencies but were aware that the dog had even attacked the same victim on a prior occasion. The act of persuading the young boy not to notify his parents of the prior dog biting incident may have directly led to the tragedy. The parents of the boy may well have taken action to prevent the boy from being exposed to a future attack had the prior dog attack not been covered up. The irresponsible conduct of covering up the prior dog attack is the type of reckless and unethical conduct that may be the basis for punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to discourage such egregious conduct and punish wrongful conduct.
If you or a close family member is injured in a dog attack in Mississippi, it is essential that an investigation be conducted to determine if the dog that attacked you has a prior propensity for viciousness. Even if such evidence cannot be discovered, a dog owner may still be liable for injuries caused by a dog attack if actual negligence of the dog owner can be established or a violation of a leash law can be proven. The experienced Mississippi dog attack attorneys at Barrett Law have been providing tenacious representation to dog attack victims for over 75 years. We provide diligent legal representation and impassioned advocacy so we invite you to call us today at 662-834-2376 to learn how we can help.