Dog Bite Cases
Accidents
Michigan Law Protects The Victims of Dog Bites.
Read More
A dog owner will not be liable if it can be shown that the bite victim somehow provoked the dog. There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes provocation; it should be judged on a case by case basis, which means it should be decided by a jury, at time of trial, and not by a judge on a Motion for Dismissal (aka Motion for Summary Disposition; see Civil Court Procedure page)
Examples of Provocation
- Approaching an unfamiliar dog;
- Hitting a dog;
- Ignoring written warnings, or verbal warnings from dog owners (e.g., “Beware of Dog” sign);
- Letting your dog antagonize an unfamiliar dog, without attempting to restrain your own animal;
- Letting your child approach an unfamiliar dog (while sometimes unsuccessful, the provocation defense is often floated by defense attorneys, in cases where a young child approaches an animal that really is not “such a nice doggie”.
- Anything else a defense attorney can convince a jury was sufficiently provocative conduct.
Non-ownership of the dog, is a defense only to the strict liability provisions of MCLA §287.351. For example, if you are babysitting a dog, while its owner is out-of-town, and (heaven forbid) the dog attacks someone on your property, you cannot be sued under the strict liability provisions of the statute, nor can you sue the dog-sitter under the statute. However, you can sue and be sued, under a theory of common-law negligence, which is preserved in Michigan law under MCLA §287.288.
In the event the dog is being kept by a non-owner, there is nothing that prevents you from claiming damages from both the owner, on a strict liability theory, and against the dog-sitter, on a common-law negligence theory.
Non-ownership of the dog, is a defense only to the strict liability provisions of MCLA §287.351. For example, if you are babysitting a dog, while its owner is out-of-town, and (heaven forbid) the dog attacks someone on your property, you cannot be sued under the strict liability provisions of the statute, nor can you sue the dog-sitter under the statute. However, you can sue and be sued, under a theory of common-law negligence, which is preserved in Michigan law under MCLA §287.288.
In the event the dog is being kept by a non-owner, there is nothing that prevents you from claiming damages from both the owner, on a strict liability theory, and against the dog-sitter, on a common-law negligence theory.
Frequently Asked Questions. Honest Answers.
Non-ownership of the dog, is a defense only to the strict liability provisions of MCLA §287.351. For example, if you are babysitting a dog, while its owner is out-of-town, and (heaven forbid) the dog attacks someone on your property, you cannot be sued under the strict liability provisions of the statute, nor can you sue the dog-sitter under the statute. However, you can sue and be sued, under a theory of common-law negligence, which is preserved in Michigan law under MCLA §287.288.
In the event the dog is being kept by a non-owner, there is nothing that prevents you from claiming damages from both the owner, on a strict liability theory, and against the dog-sitter, on a common-law negligence theory.
Why bother caring about these legal fine points? Because the owner might be collectible, while the “dog-sitter” is not, or vice versa. These legal fine points may mean the difference of collecting cash, or not collecting cash.
We have all heard folks say that certain breeds of dogs are just, by virtue of their breed, dangerous animals; e.g., pit bulls. This may be untrue, and the dog’s violent tendencies may be a function of poor stewardship/management by the dog owner. I am not knowledgeable enough to offer an opinion, but there are various lists that point to various breeds as being more dangerous than others. I offer links to a couple here, without opinion as to their accuracy:
- Dog Breeds Expert: Listing of 16 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds
- List25.com: List of 25 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds
- The Richest’s: World’s 10 Most Dangerous Dog Breeds
Again, I am not endorsing the accuracy of these lists, although some breeds, such as pit bulls and presa canario’s presence on this list should not surprise anyone.
Dangerous Dog Breeds and the Law
Does this mean that Michigan law recognizes that some breeds are dangerous by their very nature and breed? Actually, no. In fact, in one case, Taylor v Mobley, 279 Mich App 309; 760 NW2d 234 (2008), the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s ruling that a dog’s breed was irrelevant to the issue of damages, further holding that evidence of the dog’s breed may well be inadmissible under MRE 403, making inadmissible, otherwise admissible evidence that “is more prejudicial than probative”.
The value of a dog bite depends on:
- how much damage the dog has done,
- whether it is readily visible,
- how significant or even grotesque the injury may be,
- whether the dog bite may have interfered with the victim’s physical functioning and
- whether the incident has left psychological scars, etc.
As with many of these issues, this will be a fact by fact, case by case analysis, that only an experienced attorney can advise you on. Give Jon Frank a call today.
- Provocation.
- Trespassing.
- Initial lawful entry onto property, followed by proof of victim’s criminal/unlawful purpose for being on the property.
- No damages. Just getting bitten, does not create a right to sue, or to make a claim. There must be a showing of damage to the bite victim.
