OTLA Trial Lawyer Spring 2021

25 Trial Lawyer • Spring 2021 By Rob Guarrasi OTLA Guardian I f you are a dog owner, you will prob- ably agree dogs are lovable, loyal, af- fectionate, happy to welcome you home, excited by your presence and much more than “pets.” Dog owners/caregivers most often are biased in that they consider their canines as proof acceptance and love can be, in the form of our beloved four- legged friends…unconditional. As such, there will often, maybe even always, be a number of jurors in a case involving a dog bite/attack who have pre-conceived and prejudicial outlooks that favor the defendant dog owner. That being said, the evidence in your client’s case should focus not only on Fido, but also on the defendant owner and that person’s lack of the three c’s: care, caution and control. In my practice, I often want to draw attention to the Rob Guarrasi caretaker’s behavior and lack of reason- able precautions and safety measures. I will ask, “Did the owner (or caretaker) exercise reasonable care in observing, watching, controlling, feeding or exercis- ing the dog?” Very often the answer and conclusion is a resounding, “No!” Tyler Ohlmann, a dog trainer, says, “In order to fix a problem at the lower end of the leash you have to look at who’s holding the other end.” Besides holding the leash, common sense also comes into play when dealing with day-to-day situ- ations I refer to as the “hunger, heat and hurt” trio. These are the culprits that often lead to a bite or attack. First, just like humans, dogs can get agitated, annoyed and angry if they have not been fed since their morning meal. Second, dogs, like many of human- kind, don’t do well in the heat. Third, dogs are quite aware, observant and have keen senses. If a dog is not feel- ing well, is out of their usual home envi- ronment, is around strangers, is not getting attention from their owner, then common sense should alert the owner or caretaker to pay more and closer atten- tion to the animal. Common sense dog control The concept of common sense dog control, of course, leads to an argument pointing to the reasonable person code of conduct. In addition, I rely on and tend to place quite a bit of focus on the Oregon Revised Statutes. Also, applicable county and city codes provide reasonable safety measures that responsible owners and caretakers have to follow in order to control and confine their dogs. These are all great guidelines for what is expected of dog owners. The argument goes something like this: “In order to legally drive a car a person has to be licensed. In order to legally own a dog, a person has to license their dog.” Along with the “license,” which pro- vides a person with the privilege to legally drive a car, is the responsibility to obey the applicable rules of the road. Likewise, with a dog owner’s license there is a corresponding responsibility to con- trol one’s animal and obey the applicable dog control regulations. Probably everyone would agree the license to drive requires one to obey traf- fic laws, and drive in a safe and reasonable manner. Accordingly, the license to own a dog requires one to obey leash laws and laws that require a person to control and confine their animal in a reasonable way. In Oregon, the city, the county and the Legislature have all enacted regula- tions and laws to establish what is expected and what is required of owners and caretakers of dogs in order to reason- ably protect the safety of pedestrians and citizens. See Dog Attack Cases p 26 Dog Attack Cases CONCEPTS, CONCEPTIONS and PRECONCEPTIONS