The other day I parked my truck at the supermarket and noticed I was parked right next to an identical 1993 ranger – same color and everything. It was snowing heavily and as I started to walk in, I realized the guy coming out might easily mistake my truck for his, since it was one space closer and blocking his view of his own vehicle. The difference being my truck had a rather protective german shepherd inside. Not wanting to upset either the man or my dog, I moved my truck.
I began to wonder though: what would happen if someone opened the door to my truck (I generally leave it unlocked) either to steal something or by some odd mistake, and my dog bit them? Could I be held liable in some fashion? It would seem to me they would have no business in my truck and anything that transpired with the dog would be their fault, but how would the legal system see it?
I often have my dog in my truck. If I’m not on a job site the truck gets locked. I also avoid putting the windows down low enough that someone could put their hand in. My dog is not likely to bite anyone but people can be incredibly stupid and I like to avoid them being able to do something that might piss him off. If someone opened the door he’d come looking for me in the store.
How the law works is going to vary with location. In places where you are not liable they may still have no exceptions laws for dog bites in which case the dog could still be put down.
The locks are stuck. But in any case, I am just curious about the hypothetical situation of someone entering my truck and being bitten. Is it any different than if someone burglarized my house and was bitten? Surely, I couldn’t be held liable then?
I am going to say this too. The cops been warning people to keep cars locked if they have a pet in it in my city. People are stealing dogs to sell to labs or to other people.
It could made your insurance premium go up , b/c German shepherds are on the dangerous dogs list and some insurance companies made people pay more to have a dog on the list. Does your insurance agent know you have a "rather protective german shepherd "?
Liability for injuries on someone’s private property is commonly handled on a strict liability basis in many jurisdictions. Very briefly, this means that any injury to anybody on your property is YOUR liability, regardless of whether the injured person had any business being there. One reads horror stories in the news from time to time.
One horror story from a good many years ago that I recall went something like this: Burglar climbs onto roof of school at night; tries to break in through skylight. Falls and gets hurt. Sues school district for big hungus bucks and wins.
The underlying theory, I think, is that any injury that happens to any unauthorized person on your property could just as well have happened to any authorized person on your property, and you certainly could be held liable for that. So the law wants to strongly encourage you to maintain your property in a safe condition for anybody, authorized or unauthorized or otherwise, who may be there.
The dog bite in your own truck quite possibly would be handled under this same theory.
That site clearly is pushing some agenda, and the varied tellings of the story leave me wondering what really did happen. It does seem to say clearly that the guy who fell through the skylight was grievously injured and permanently disabled; sued for $8 million; school district settled for a much lesser amount than that. Still, all together, it seems to support my point about strict liability for injuries like that.
So he didn’t sue the school and win, he sued the school and the school chose to settle. Are there any example of this sort of thing happening where the criminal wins the lawsuit?
I’m curious how this is any different from someone breaking into your home. In some places, you’d be able to shoot someone who does so. I’m assuming in those places, at least, a dog bite or two would also be permitted?
In most venues, a dog is supposed to be able to have contact with humans without attacking. Some dogs need to be trained to control their aggressive nature. It is called Harboring a vicious animal.
From the attached article:
“If you have a dog that has a propensity to do any vicious behavior, you have a problem, (Owners) have a duty to the public.”
Not necessarily. As mentioned up-thread with strict liability you need to keep your home safe. If you were not home and your dog attacked a burglar you might still find yourself liable. If you were home and you ordered the dog to attack you would be on safer grounds provided the state had a castle doctrine.
The burglar falling through the skylight case is a classic example of media misrepresentation (or at least distortion) of tort cases. What really happened is the burglar (Rick Bodine, a teenager at the time) had snuck onto the roof of a high school gym to steal a floodlight. Bodine was unaware he was walking over skylights because the school had tarred over the roof. He fell through the skylights and onto the floor of the gym and became a quadraplegic as a result of the injuries he sustained. The school district settled largely because they were aware of the dangers of the tarred ceiling, as a similar incident had happened a few months earlier. The school was arguably negligent in some respect.
As to the OP’s scenario – whether the Defedant bitten by the dog could pursue damages would depend on whether the OP was negligent. Much like the school district was aware of the hidden danger of the tarred-over skylights, the OP was aware that his dog is “rather protective.” He was also aware that he parked next to a similar looking truck, and that the other truck’s owner might confuse the two. So the question is: under these circumstances, was the OP negligent in leaving the truck door unlocked?
If you’re out & about in any fashion with a biting dog, and he bites somebody, it’s gonna be considered your fault. Lock the doors and/or muzzle him. Or just leave him home. Best case, they’ll ‘only’ euthanize your pet. Worst case they’ll sue you (and euthanize your dog).
These horror stories are crap. I know of no jurisdiction which imposes strict liability for property owners. Most jurisdictions, in fact, hold that you are not an insurer of a person’s safety when they are on your property.
At common law, the only duty that you owe to a trespasser (which this guy is) is to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless behavior. Building a bamboo pit or setting a trap gun are the classic examples. When someone comes on your property with permission, animals are usually covered under the “one bite” rule. If you have no reason to know that the dog is dangerous, then the injured party must show negligence. If you do know that the dog is dangerous, then you are strictly liable for injuries caused by the dog.
I don’t have a handy chart for a state by state breakdown, but a strong majority of states retain the “no duty” rule for trespassers. A minority hold that you owe some lesser duty of care, and an unlocked door with a dangerous dog inside may very well qualify, especially if it was a child that was bitten.
Who in the heck would tar over a skylight? What if a maintenance employee who didn’t know about the skylights had to go up there?
Seriously, the dummy who OK’d that needs to be fired. I have to climb inside ceilings pretty often for my job, and I could get killed if something gave way that SHOULD be able, by appearance and building code, to bear my 150-lb. body.
