Scottsdale Dog Bite Lawyer

The Insurance Information Institute (III) reports that 70% of U.S. households own pets. Out of those, 69 million Americans own dogs. While many families consider their dogs to be important, beloved family members, they can also be dangerous. When a dog bites someone else, the victim can suffer permanently disabling injuries or even be killed.

If you were bitten by a dog and suffered serious injuries or lost your loved one in a dog attack, you are entitled to pursue compensation through a dog bite lawsuit. A Scottsdale dog bite lawyer at Lamber Goodnow can review your case and help you understand its legal viability. if your claim has legal merits, we can help you pursue maximal compensation for your injuries and other losses.

Dog Bite Statute in Arizona

The US states generally either follow a one-bite rule or a strict liability statute for dog bites. Arizona has a strict liability dog bite statute found at ARS § 11-1025. Under this law, dog owners are strictly liable to pay damages to people who are bitten by their dogs when the victims are present in a public place or lawfully present on private property. Under Arizona’s approach, the dog’s owner will be liable even if the owner was unaware that the dog had a propensity to bite other people. There are some exceptions to the strict liability dog bite rule in cases involving a military or police dog when the bite occurs in the following ways:

• Police or military dog bites a person after being provoked or to defend itself
• Police or military dog bites someone the police are trying to apprehend
• Police or military dog bites someone during the investigation of a crime
• Police or military dog bites someone while a warrant is being served
• Police or military dog bites someone to defend the police officer or another person

It is important to note that Arizona’s strict liability dog bite statute only applies to dog owners and not to other people who might possess a dog, according to the holding in Johnson v. Svidergol, 157 Ariz. 333 (1988). Possessors of dogs who are not owners are not strictly liable for dog bites. However, there might be other ways that you could pursue a dog bite lawsuit against someone other than a dog’s owner when you have been bitten or otherwise attacked. The strict liability statute also only applies when a dog bites someone and not when a dog attacks and injures somebody in another way. For example, if a dog jumps on a child or elderly person and knocks them down in a public park, Arizona’s strict liability statute wouldn’t apply because they were not bitten. However, the victim might be entitled to pursue a negligence claim against the dog’s owner or the person in possession of the dog.

Dog owners are strictly liable when their dogs bite people in public or on private property, including their own property. A dog’s owner will be liable when the dog bites someone who is lawfully present on their property. However, dog owners are typically not liable when their dogs bite trespassers or others who do not have the legal right to be present. Some examples of people who might be able to recover compensation through a dog bite lawsuit after being bitten on private property include invited guests and those who are present for legitimate business reasons, such as meter readers, postal workers, delivery personnel, and others.

Trespassers typically will not be able to recover compensation through a dog bite lawsuit against a property owner. However, owners should post warning signs about their dogs so there won’t be any question about whether or not the owner extended an implicit invitation to the trespasser to enter the property.

Lawful Presence and Provocation

Arizona defines lawful presence in ARS § 11-1026. Under this statute, someone is lawfully present when they are there by the dog owner’s invitation, are social guests, or are present to complete a legitimate duty recognized by local, federal, or state law.

While a lawfully present person can file a lawsuit against the dog’s owner for a dog bite, the dog owner can assert an affirmative defense in cases in which the victim provoked the dog under ARS § 11-1027. When a dog owner asserts the affirmative defense of provocation, the court will consider whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have viewed the victim’s actions as provocative enough to induce the dog to bite. Provocation can include many things, including hitting a dog, pulling a dog’s tail, and others. In Toney v. Bouthillier, 129 Ariz. 402 (1981), the court found a toddler’s accidentally stepping on a dog’s tail was sufficiently provoking.

Liability Under the Dog-at-Large Statute

Under ARS § 11-1020, anyone who allows a dog to roam off-leash can be strictly liable to pay a victim compensation when the dog injures the victim or causes damage to their property. This law provides a way to hold someone liable even if they do not own the dog. For example, if you let a friend take your dog to a public park, and your friend removes your dog’s leash to let it run free, they could be liable if it knocks down someone and causes them to hit their head and sustain a traumatic brain injury.

Pursuing a Negligence Lawsuit

You are not limited to only filing a strict liability claim under the state’s strict liability dog bite statute. According to the decision in Murdock v. Balle, 144 Ariz. 136 (1985), victims are permitted to pursue negligence causes of action against dog possessors and owners even though the dog bite statute is codified in the state’s statutory laws. If a dog’s owner or possessor negligently permits a dog to attack or bite someone else, the victim can file a lawsuit for negligence against the responsible party. If the dog owner was the negligent party, the victim can file a lawsuit that includes both strict liability and negligence claims. Pursuing both types of causes of action increases the likelihood of recovering full compensation.

When a dog owner or possessor violates a municipal ordinance or state law, which allows the dog bite to happen, the victim can pursue a negligence per se cause of action. Negligence per se claims allow victims to hold owners or possessors liable based on the violation of the law instead of having to prove negligence. For example, violating the leash ordinance might provide the victim with the ability to pursue both negligence per se and strict liability causes of action when a dog bites someone.

Relevant Statutes of Limitations

The different statutes of limitations in Arizona for dog bite claims are another good reason to file both strict liability and negligence causes of action. Under the dog bite strict liability statute, victims must file a dog bite lawsuit against the dog owner within one year of when the dog bite occurred. By contrast, the statute of limitations for a personal injury negligence claim is two years from the date of the incident under ARS § 12-542. If you don’t file your lawsuit in time under the strict liability statute, you might still be able to recover compensation by filing a negligence lawsuit against the dog’s owner. However, filing a negligence lawsuit will require you to prove each of the elements of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.

If you wait longer than two years after the date of your dog bite injury, you won’t be able to pursue compensation through a legal claim of any type. The statutes of limitations are in place to prevent people from filing stale claims. It’s best for you to contact a Scottsdale dog bite attorney as soon after your dog bite incident occurs as possible. Contacting a lawyer quickly can help to preserve critical evidence and strengthen your case.

Discuss Your Case With A Lawyer Now