BLOG

For many centuries now, dogs have been historically known to live with man. However, there are times when this mutual relationship can lead to sad occurrences with inflicting bites that can cause serious injuries. Unfortunately, not everyone knows that they can hire the services of a personal injury attorney in Florida to seek financial compensation for the injuries sustained in a dog bite case.

When a person is injured as a result of a dog bite, he or she can duly seek financial compensation under Florida law. As a matter of fact, the owner of the dog is strictly liable for any injuries sustained from the bite. Just so you know, there is no need for the injured party to ascertain that the pet owner was negligent in any way. The incident is enough to prove ownership of the dog.

Nevertheless, this can only apply when the attack has been lawfully ascertained to have occurred right on the dog owner’s property. But if found to be at fault, the ultimate award amount of the victim will be reduced the percentage his or her own actions. It is important to note that a victim of a dog attack can be found to be negligent. Sometimes, they can bring about their own injuries through certain provocative actions against the animal.

Don’t hesitate to get an experienced personal injury attorney in Florida when involved in an aggressive dog attack. In order to help you understand how strict liability can play out in practice, here is a recent dog bit case for your consideration.

This is a dog bite case that involved a woman in Florida. After hunting for squirrels on her friend’s property, the plaintiff soon decided to return to her car at some point during the day. But before reaching her car, she was attacked by a pack of dogs belonging to the defendant. As a result of the attack, she suffered serious dog bite injuries.

The plaintiff claimed that the owner of the dogs was strictly liable for the injuries sustained when she filed a personal injury lawsuit against him. In a bid to find for the plaintiff, the jury was required to ascertain the owner’s negligence with the trial court declining to instruct it on strict liability. However, the defendant eventually found favor after the jury declared that he wasn’t in any way negligent despite owning the dogs.

But the plaintiff decided to appeal the ruling of the lower court. She argued that a strict liability analysis should have been applied and that establishing ownership was sufficient enough to find the defendant liable for the injuries she sustained if the court has applied a strict liability analysis. After noting that a strict liability analysis was followed by the jurisdiction, the court agreed to so.

However, it instructed the jury to consider if the plaintiff was in anyway negligent and that her award be reduced by her percentage of fault if actually, she was.