What You Need To Know About Dog Bite Injury Cases 

In 2018 York Gaskill, LLC handled a horrific dog bite case. The case involved a young child playing in his cul de sac, when his neighbor’s pit-bulls escaped their yard, left the owner’s property and chased him down, biting and severely injuring the child. He was life-flighted to Children’s Hospital where he survived, but with permanent disfigurement and scarring. Another neighbor helped pull the dogs off of him; without her intervention, he would likely have died. York Gaskill was able to obtain the maximum recovery for the child and his family. Of course, the major dog bite settlement does not take away the pain and trauma the child suffered, but it significantly helped that child on his road to recovery.

The law has evolved relatively recently in Georgia in dog bite cases. For a long time, the absence of a prior event would be taken as a major obstacle to a recovery. Dogs have historically been regarded as a “harmless species” so the burden was placed on the Plaintiff to show that the dog in question is vicious or dangerous, and the owner knows it. The law followed what has been referred to as the “One Bite Rule” or the “First Bite Free Rule”. The rule does not require a literal “first bite” but does place the burden on the Plaintiff to prove that the owner or keeper has “reason to know of the propensity of the dog to do harm of the type which it inflicts”. For the most part, cases where there was no prior evidence that the dog had bitten someone previously, would languish and fail to proceed. That “one bite free rule” was modified by the recent ruling in Steaglad v. Eason, 300 Ga. 717 (2017). That case allowed the Plaintiff to proceed based on evidence of two admitted incidents of prior “growling, barking and snapping”, rather than any previous bite. The case overruled the Court of Appeals on this point where a pit-bull named “Rocks” has previously growled and snapped, and then growled, barked and snapped about a week prior to the attack. These facts were enough to show the propensity of the dog to be vicious, the potential danger, and the owners’ knowledge.

The evidence to show propensity, danger and knowledge can also revolve around a violation of an ordinance. In the case recently handled by York Gaskill, the local authorities charged the owner with a series of dog leash and other local ordinance violations which establish that vicious propensity. OCGA § 51-2-7, provides that, “[i]n 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.” See also Johnston v. Warendh, 252 Ga. App. 674, 676 (1) (556 SE2d 867) (2001).

This nightmare scenario is one where excellent legal counsel can help. We are trusted dog bite attorneys in Duluth, GA. The lawyers at York Gaskill have represented individuals in dog bite matters for the past two decades and can help if you or a loved one has been involved in an attack by a vicious animal. As with any Personal Injury case, there are no fees unless you win. Call our law firm in Gwinnett at 678.697.6789 or send us a messagefor a free consultation.