Atlanta Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

As an Atlanta personal injury lawyer practicing throughout north Georgia, I continue to be amazed that dog owners allow dangerous animals to attack innocent victims causing serious personal injuries. I just read another article in the AJC on line about a Douglasville women attacked by three pit bulls as she was taking a walk down her street. The dogs were on the front porch of a home in the neighborhood and when the woman walked by, all three dogs attached her.

The 56 year old women suffered numerous puncture bite wounds to her arms and legs and will have to have skin grafts because of the severity of her wounds on her face. She is lucky to only have these injuries. Pit bulls often inflict catastrophic injuries and cause deaths, especially to children. There are almost weekly articles in Atlanta newspapers about pit bull attacks on children. One I read earlier this year talked about the death on an infant caused by a pit bull, and that when the dying child was being treated at Scottish Rite Hospital, there were 4 other children at the hospital being treated for injuries inflicted in unrelated pit bull attacks.

Pit bull and other dog attacks are clearly serious matters that need to be handled by serious lawyers who know how to handle dog attack cases. Proving an owner was at fault can be complicated. An owner is liable if he or she had prior knowledge the animal was dangerous or if the attack occurred while the dog was in violation of the local leash laws. Proving a dog is in violation of the local leash laws is relatively easy; proving the dog had dangerous and vicious propensities and that the owner knew it can be impossible.

An investigation needs to be made as soon as possible after the attack to pin down all the evidence supporting the facts surrounding the incident, especially, obtaining witness interviews before memories fade or purposely change. Neighborhoods need to be canvassed to find out what neighbors know about the dog in question regarding whether the dog was regularly running loose, and whether the dog had previously attacked or bitten anyone.

Because of the catastrophic injuries that can be caused by dog attacks, it is also important that the lawyers handling these cases understand the complicated medicine involved in treating wounds with skin graphs and other advanced treatments, as well as understand the psychological and emotional toll on dog bite victims.

Continue reading "Atlanta Metro Area Pit Bull Dogs Attack Causing Disfiguring Injuries" »

As an Atlanta injury lawyer practicing in north Georgia, I get a number of calls a year from potential clients who suffer serious injuries caused by unleashed dogs chasing them. Typically, the client is running from the dog and trips and falls and sometimes is knocked down by the dog. I got another such call today from a Gwinnett County woman whose son severely broke his arm when he fell running from a dog he believed was going to bite him. She asked if she had a claim for his injuries.

In Georgia, a claim for damages for injuries caused by a chasing dog can be successful even if the dog does not bite. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the owner of a dog can be liable for injuries caused by the dog if the owner acted negligently. Georgia Statue § 51-2-7 provides:

A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash.

Nothing in the Statute requires the dog to bite for the owner to be liable for the injuries. Rather, in the context of the chasing dog, it is enough that the dog "causes injury" while off the owner's property and in violation of the local leash law or ordinance. In the case of the woman that called me today, if the dog chasing her son was off the owner's property and not on a leash, there is a good chance a successful claim can be made. According to the mother, this is exactly what happened, and she said her son in no way provoked the animal to attack him.

This is very similar to another recent case our firm successfully handled for a man who was chased by a dog while riding his bicycle on neighborhood streets in Atlanta. In the case, the dog was also off the owner's property and not on a leash. The dog caused our client to swerve off the roadway and into a ditch causing serious injuries including a severely broken collar bone that required surgical repair. The case was settled for a significant amount of money that covered all the medical bills and a substantial award for pain and suffering.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a chasing dog, please feel free to contact me to discuss whether you have a potential claim against the owner of the dog. The lawyers in our office have handled many of these cases and have the resources to properly investigate and prosecute your claim.

As an Atlanta personal injury lawyer practicing in north Georgia, I was saddened today when I read an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on line about 3 children who were violently attacked and seriously injured by five dogs that had escaped from their owner's yard in southern California. Most injured of the three was a 5 year old girl who was pulled from her mother's arms and tossed about like a rag doll by a mastiff that punctured the girl's lung, broke numerous ribs, and inflicted several bites. The girl remains hospitalized since Monday and is unable to breath on her own.

The girl's 7 year old brother also remains hospitalized after needing 237 staples to close a leg wound, and her 8 year old sister was treated for leg and arm injuries. After the incident one of the dogs was shot when it attacked an officer and the other 4, including the mastiff and what appeared to be pit bull mixes, were taken into custody and quarantined to determine whether they have rabies and whether they should be destroyed.

As part of my persoal injury practice, I represent victims of dog bites and attacks like the family in California. I have a personal connection to my clients in these cases as I was attacked by a German Sheppard when I was 6 years old. As a result, my left calf was almost torn off and it took over 100 stitches to repair it. To this day, unfortunately, I have not completely gotten over my general fear of dogs.

The difficulty in handling dog attack cases is proving the owner was negligent for the dog's behavior. In Georgia, OCGA § 51-2-7, as amended effective July 1, 1985, provides:

A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash.

Under this statute, generally speaking, you prove an owner's negligence by (1) showing the dog was off the owner's property and in violation of the local leash law or ordinance, or (2) even if the dog was not off the owner's property and/or not in violation of the local leash law, showing that the dog was vicious or dangerous and that the owner had knowledge of this fact. It is not enough to show the owner had reason to know the animal had a propensity to do harm; rather, it is necessary he has reason to know that it has a propensity to do the harm of the type it inflicts.

In the California case, it appears the owner of the dogs will be liable for the vicious attacks and horrible injuries suffered by the children as it appears that if the city or county where the attacks occurred had any type of leash law, the owner was most likely in violation of such law when the attacks occurred. It would be a much more difficult case if the children had been on the owner's property and not in violation of the local leash laws.

In that case, there would have to be evidence that the owner had knowledge of prior episodes where the dogs had previously attacked. It is not only insufficient that the owner might have known the dogs were aggressive; it is also insufficient to simply show the dogs were violent breeds. Actual knowledge of prior attacks is what is necessary.

The experienced trial lawyers in our office know the law and the facts required to properly litigate a case to recover damages resulting from a dog bite or attack. If you or a family member has been through the frightening and painful experience of being attached by a dog, please call me to discuss whether you have a case against the owner of the dog. I know what you have been through.