OTLA Trial Lawyer Spring 2021

26 Trial Lawyer • Spring 2021 Not every dog has to bite In Oregon, when someone is men- aced, bit or attacked by a canine, that person is protected by the state law as well as county and city ordinances and regulations that establish reasonable ex- pectations, requirements and safety measures. Whenever I am retained to represent a person injured by a dog, I rely on and cite to the Oregon Revised Stat- utes, as well as the particular county and city code regulations where the attack occurred. To illustrate how the law can help you, I want to review a case I recently handled that occurred on the Oregon Coast. The claim was a bit unusual in that the injury to my client did not occur as a result of a bite. In fact, there was not any contact between the dog and my client. In this case, a daughter and her hus- band traveled from California with their dog. It was August and they came to the coast to visit and stay with her parents. Her parents lived in a neighborhood that had no fences separating the cul-de- sac of single family homes. In this par- ticular development, each home is only separated by about twenty feet. Basically, the neighbors or on top of each other. At one point, the daughter opened the front door of the parents’ home. Predictably and foreseeably, the dog got out and headed straight over to a neigh- bor’s property. That neighbor became my client. My client was standing on his own property when the dog approached in an aggressive and threatening manner. My client cautiously, carefully and most predictably, b a c k e d up a n d a w a y from the dog. In the process of doing so, he fell onto his back. The fall resulted in a thoracic spinal frac- ture whi ch required sur- gery to repair. A c l a im was filed with the homeowner’s insurer, which is based out of California. The adjuster immedi- ately denied the claim on the basis there was “no contact” and “no bite” and, therefore, “no liability.” Despite my ref- erences to the various laws and regula- tions, the claims representative would not budge. In this case, and in almost every case, I believe it is important for the lawyer (in addition to possibly a paralegal and/or private investigator) to go to the scene. I like to view and observe the scene of the bite/attack for myself. After seeing how close the homes were to each other, I believed a jury would realize the dog owners should have taken reasonable steps to leash and control their animal. My client and his spouse did not want to involve their neighbors in the initial investigation, so I did not retain an in- vestigator to speak to any of the neigh- bors. However, I did reach out to the ER personnel as well as the city police who came out to the accident scene. My client was a sincere, kind and considerate individual. We discussed his case, and against my advice and counsel, he initially instructed me that he did not want to pursue a lawsuit against his neighbor. He was more interested in pre s e r v ing the i r f r i endship and good neighborly relations. I prepared a detailed demand letter in which I out- lined the Oregon laws as well as the county and city ordinances that applied to the case. However, the insurer continued to deny the claim and make no offer because they believed no negligence was involved. I had another meeting with my client and explained the insurance company’s position and again recommended litiga- tion. This time he consented. Within one week of filing the lawsuit, the insurer tendered their policy limits on what was previously a no offer, no negligence position. (Feel free to send me an email at rob3151@comast.net requesting the de- mand letter and/or complaint. I will be happy to send it to you with permission to use, amend, expand upon and adapt Dog Attack Cases Continued from p 25