Get medical attention

The first thing to do after a dog bite is to clean the wound. Wash the area with soap and water to reduce the risk of infection. Even if the bite seems minor, seek medical attention right away. A healthcare professional will check the bite for signs of infection, administer a tetanus shot if necessary, and possibly prescribe antibiotics. In some cases, rabies treatment may be required, especially if the dog’s vaccination status is unknown.

Identify the dog and its owner

If possible, try to identify the dog and its owner. This includes noting the breed, size, color, and any distinguishing marks on the dog. Ask the owner for proof of the dog’s rabies vaccination status. If the dog is a stray, contact animal control, as they may need to track down the dog for testing.

Report the bite

In North Carolina, dog bites should be reported to the local animal control or health department. The authorities will investigate the incident and determine if the dog has a history of aggressive behavior. Reporting the bite helps ensure public safety and can also help with tracking the dog’s vaccination status.

Keep records

Keep detailed records of the dog bite, including medical records, photographs of the injury, and any communication with the dog owner. These records may be important if further legal action is necessary.

Dealing with a dog bite requires prompt medical care and knowing what steps to follow. Following these steps helps protect your health and ensures the issue is handled properly.

Recently, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case involving a dog bite. The defendants’ two children were walking the family dog before school. The plaintiff was walking on the opposite side of the street after escorting her daughter to the bus stop. The dog began barking at the plaintiff and tugging at his leash. The collar broke and the dog attacked plaintiff leaving several bite marks on her body. The plaintiff received medical treatment for her injuries after being taken by ambulance to the hospital. The local animal control authority indicated that there had been no prior incidents involving the dog.

The plaintiff asserted negligence, strict liability, and infliction of emotional distress in her complaint against the defendants. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that they had not received any complaints about the dog before this event or noticed him acting aggressively. The plaintiff filed a counter motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff included an affidavit from a veterinarian with her motion stating that the dog belonged to a dangerous breed, the American Bull Dog. The defendants deposed the expert, who testified that not all pit bulls are dangerous dogs and stated that a responsible way of restraining a pit bull is a collar and leash.

Both parties amended their motions for summary judgment. The defendants also added an expert witness, a veterinarian, who stated that breed alone cannot determine the temperament of a dog. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. The reviewing court first addressed summary judgment of the strict liability claim, noting that the primary issue hinged on whether the dog was a dangerous dog under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 67-4.1(a)(1). A dangerous dog is one that has killed or inflicted serious injury without provocation or is deemed potentially dangerous by a municipal authority. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the dog became dangerous when he engaged in the attack that caused her injuries. The court agreed with the defendant that because there had been no prior attacks the strict liability claim was properly dismissed.

Regarding the negligence claim, the appellate court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate because there was no evidence indicated that the dog had broken his collar or leash in the past and no evidence indicated that this type of restraint was unreasonable.

If you were injured by a dog bite, you may be entitled to compensation. At Maurer Law, we are ready to help you explore your potential legal rights and assist you with obtaining the outcome that you deserve. We provide a free consultation so call us at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

In a recent case, a man was reportedly attacked by two dogs while walking down the street requiring him to be hospitalized for 13 days. He sustained permanent injuries to his legs as a result of the attack. One month before this attack, the man’s brother was attacked by dogs while walking on the same street.

The man brought a civil lawsuit against the owner of the dogs and the owners of the properties where the dogs were being housed. Two sisters owned the two adjoining parcels of land. There was a residence on the first sister’s parcel. On the second sister’s side was a vacant and uninhabitable home. Neither party used the parcels for a permanent residence and both lived out of state. The sisters and their brother had keys and full access to the inhabitable home at all times. The brother ran a pitbull breeding business and built on enclosure on the second sister’s land. Electricity and water from the first sister’s property were used to support the dog breeding business. There was no fence between the sisters’ parcels.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged strict liability and negligence per se. Eventually, the court granted motions dismissing many of the claims against the defendants and dismissing all claims as to one of the sisters. The plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed all but one of the dismissals, noting that the sister had failed to show that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding whether she was liable under a theory of negligence per se based on Wadesboro Code of Ordinances section 4-4. This ordinance makes it unlawful for people within the town to keep or cause to be kept vicious animals unless they are confined within a secure building or enclosure or under restraint.

The sister alleged that she did not violate the statute because she was not an owner of the dogs and did not keep the dogs or cause them to be kept pursuant to the ordinance. The appellate court concluded that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the sister was causing the dogs to be kept by allowing her brother to house the operation on her property and by furnishing electricity and water to support the business. As a result, the appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings as to whether the sister should be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

If you were injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, you may be entitled to compensation. Maurer Law’s seasoned team of attorneys provides a free consultation to discuss your situation and whether we can help you. We have handled a wide variety of injury cases on behalf of individuals throughout North Carolina. Call us now at 704-243-9292 or contact us online.

In North Carolina, someone bitten by a dog has multiple different theories under which he or she can sue for damages. The first is the North Carolina dog bite statutes. A dog owner can be held strictly liable for a dog bite to a person if he willfully, knowingly, and intentionally violates the rule against dogs running at large under North Carolina General Statutes section 67-12. This rule applies only to a dog that is unaccompanied by the owner or another family member or person and that is running at large.

When this law doesn’t apply, a dog owner might be held strictly liable under section 67-4.4. The issue in that case is whether the injuries were inflicted by a dangerous dog. A dangerous dog is defined as one that is at least six months old and running at large at night, that previously hurt or killed others, or that was previously declared dangerous or potentially dangerous by officials.

When the statutory requirements aren’t fulfilled, there may be a remedy under common law. You can recover compensation by proving negligence. Negligence exists when there’s a lack of ordinary care that a reasonably careful and prudent individual would use under the same circumstances. To establish negligence, you will need to prove:  (1) the defendant’s legal duty, (2) the defendant’s breach of duty, (3) actual and legal causation, and (4) injury. Legal cause is that which naturally and not broken by a new, independent cause created injuries to the plaintiff. It has to be an event without which the plaintiff wouldn’t have been hurt.

In the past, a dog owner of a dog that hadn’t acted viciously before was still held liable under a negligence theory because they should have known that breed had a general propensity to be territorial, unpredictable, and aggressive. The owner of a dog is supposed to know the propensities of certain animals and use due care to protect against injuries from actions that are foreseeable.

When any animal control law is violated, it may be possible to sue a dog owner for negligence per se. To succeed in such a claim, you will need to show:  (1) a duty was created by a safety statute or ordinance, (2) the safety statute or ordinance was developed to protect a class of which you are a part, (3) the statutory duty was breached, (4) you suffered an injury of the type the statute or ordinance was meant to prevent, and (5) it was legally caused by the statutory or ordinance violation. You may also be able to recover under the one-bite rule.

If you were bitten by someone else’s dog in the Charlotte metro area, Greensboro, or Winston-Salem, the experienced Charlotte personal injury attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Although dogs are beloved pets and often provide emotional support formally, they can act in unpredictable ways or ways not anticipated by their particular owners. The harm that dogs are capable of inflicting is tremendous and may include injuries so severe they are fatal. In North Carolina, you have three years after suffering injuries from a dog bite to file a lawsuit against the owner. In most cases, you will not be able to have your case heard or to recover damages if you wait for more than three years after being bitten to file suit.

Under section 67 of the North Carolina General Statutes, a dog owner may be liable for damages if you can prove it was a dangerous dog and it injured you. Unlike some other states, this law applies even if there was no bite and the injuries were inflicted by some other means, such as the dog knocking you over.

To prove a dog was dangerous, you’ll have to show one of the following:  the dog seriously injured or killed someone without provocation, the dog was owned for the purposes of dog fighting, or it was determined to be potentially dangerous by the local animal control board. A local board may find a dog potentially dangerous if it’s bitten somebody, attacked another animal, killed another animal, or acted aggressively when someone approached.

Some states require you to establish negligence, which means that the jury will decide whether the owner used reasonable care to stop the dog from hurting somebody else. However, North Carolina’s law is considered a strict liability law. This means a dog owner may be held responsible even if they never saw the dog bite a human or knock someone over. For example, an owner could be held responsible if someone had previously reported that the dog who inflicted a bite had injured his cat.

As a practical matter, however, very few people report that a dog attacked their pet or acted aggressively toward them when they were approached. This can make it tricky to establish liability because it is difficult to show that a dog meets the criteria of being a “dangerous dog.” You may need to investigate whether the owner ever saw their dog bite someone or nip someone, or whether the owner allowed their dog to be involved in dog fights.

Dog owners have multiple defenses to claims that a dog hurt someone else, making it important to retain experienced counsel. For example, the owner may claim that you were trespassing, provoking the dog, or trying to commit some sort of wrong and that the dog was simply behaving defensively.

If you were bitten by someone else’s dog, the experienced personal injury attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

In a recent North Carolina appellate case, the plaintiff appealed from an order granting summary judgment for the defendant in a dog bite case. The case arose because the defendant’s brother owned two pit bulls that he kept at his other sister’s home in Wadesboro, North Carolina. The defendant had a residence next door to her sister, but neither of them lived in their residences. The sister’s residence didn’t have running water or electricity, so the brother would sometimes use water from the house owned by the defendant to nourish his pit bulls.

In 2013, the plaintiff (a neighbor) was bitten by the pit bulls after they ran from the defendant’s house and attacked him. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the brother and the two sisters. He sued for negligence per se and strict liability. The defendant asked that the lawsuit be dismissed for a failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim but denied the motion with regard to negligence per se.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the negligence per se claim. The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the same claim. The trial court conducted a hearing and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s brother and the defendant’s sister but granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff asked the court to reconsider, but this motion was denied. He appealed.

On appeal, the appellate court explained there are two ways to appeal an interlocutory order or judgment. When a judgment is final as to some of the parties, the case can be certified for appeal by the trial court under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b). Or when the plaintiff’s is deprived of a substantial right, an appeal is allowed under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-277(a) and 7A-27(d)(1).

In this case, the trial court had certified its order for immediate appeal. The appellate court explained that when there’s more than one claim for relief, the court can enter a final judgment for one or more, but fewer than all, claims only if there isn’t a just reason for a delay, and this is decided in the judgment under Rule 54(b). The appellate court found that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment didn’t contain the certification required by Rule 54(b), leaving her outstanding claims against the defendant’s brother and the defendant’s sister unresolved. The appellate court determined that the trial court had tried to retroactively certify a March order by entering another order in May 2016 after the notice of appeal was filed.

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

If you were bitten by someone else’s dog, the experienced personal injury attorneys at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.

Before they bought the property, the dog got so large that the Hewetts began to keep him only in the fenced area. The plaintiff was eight years old when he visited the Hewetts’ nine-year-old son. During the visit, the plaintiff followed the Hewetts’ son into the fenced area. While they were standing there, the dog bit the plaintiff in the leg. The Hewetts’ son hit the dog with a stick to get him to let go, but he couldn’t get him to let go and went to get his mom. The dog bit the plaintiff again in the shoulder and again wouldn’t let go.

The mother released the eight-year-old from the dog, and a neighbor grabbed the boy and pulled him over the fence away from the dog. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries. Animal Control investigated and got statements. The dog was kept quarantined at the animal shelter, and the Hewetts decided they would euthanize him.

The plaintiff sued both Mr. Covington and the Hewetts after reaching adulthood. The complaint was voluntarily dismissed because Mr. Covington died. The plaintiff refiled against the Hewetts and Mrs. Covington, alleging negligence. The trial court entered a judgment of half a million dollars against the Hewetts. Mrs. Covington filed for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion.

The plaintiff argued that there was a factual issue about whether Mrs. Covington had control over the Rottweiler. The appellate court disagreed. It explained that simply having leased property didn’t automatically establish landlord liability for a dog attack.

Instead, the landlord needed to have specific control over a dangerous animal. When a landlord has actual knowledge that a pet has a dangerous propensity and is present on leased property, and the landlord can control the property, he owes a duty to use ordinary care to protect third parties from the animal.

In the case at hand, the appellate court reasoned that there was no evidence either Mrs. or Mr. Covington knew or had reason to know of any dangerous propensity by the Rottweiler to attack. Mr. Covington had asked the Hewetts to contact Animal Control just to get advice on how to build a fence that would be in accordance with local ordinances, not because the dog had been aggressive. There were no prior incidents of aggression, and nobody complained about the dog before the plaintiff’s visit in 1996. Mrs. Covington had testified that the dog didn’t have a reputation for biting and that Mr. Covington wouldn’t have allowed the dog if it were dangerous.

The plaintiff argued that the appellate court had previously found that owners could be charged with knowing the general propensity of a Rottweiler. The appellate court explained that the plaintiff hadn’t presented evidence to show that Rottweilers as a breed were dangerous. The lower court’s order was affirmed.

If you were injured by a dog bite on someone else’s property, an experienced premises liability attorney at Maurer Law may be able to help you recover compensation. Contact us at 704-243-9292 or via our online form.