Boston Personal Injury Lawyers Blog

In Massachusetts, the owner or "keeper" of a dog who causes injury to another person is legally obligated to compensate the victim for conscious pain and suffering, as well as for the costs of medical treatment, lost wages, and other resulting losses. Depending on the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, the financial consequence of such an attack can be considerable. Now consider the extent of the financial liability if the Court were to triple the value of that very same claim - turning a $300,000 jury verdict into a recovery approaching one million dollars!

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 Section 155 (the so-called Massachusetts "dog bite statute") is the section of Massachusetts law that imposes liability upon the dog's owner or "keeper" for injuries or death caused by a dog.

§ 155. Liability for damage caused by dog; minors; presumption and burden of proof

If any dog shall do any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or if the owner or keeper be a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an action under this section is brought, is under seven years of age at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the defendant in such action.

But it is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 Section 159 that adds the real "teeth" to the Massachusetts Dog Bite Law. According to Section 159:

§ 159. Treble damages for injuries caused by dogs ordered to be restrained

If a dog which the selectmen of a town, chief of police of a city or the county commissioners, or, upon review, a district court, shall have ordered to be restrained shall wound any person, or shall worry, wound or kill any live stock or fowls, the owner or keeper of such dog shall be liable in tort to the person injured thereby in treble the amount of damages sustained by him.

Simply put - if, prior to causing injury or death, a dog was ordered by city or town officials to be "restrained", and the owner or keeper of the dog failed to abide by that order (for example, by allowing the dog to roam free, or unmuzzled, as the order so specified), then the dog's owner or keeper would be responsible to compensate the victim three times (3X) the amount awarded the victim by the judge or jury.

This does not mean that the victim of a dog bite would automatically be entitled to have their award or verdict tripled simply because the offending dog has bitten others in the past. To be eligible for a triple award, the offending dog must have been (1) the subject of a prior "restraining order" which typically requires a special hearing to evaluate the need for such restraint, (s) found to be in violation of that prior restraining order.

A lawyer with significant experience in the area of Massachusetts dog bite law is in the best position to determine whether such an order was previously issued and violated, giving rise to "treble" (triple) damages.

Continue reading "The Real Teeth in the Massachusetts "Dog Bite" Statute" »

On June 16th, 2006, the plaintiff was a lawful visitor at the defendants' home. The defendants were the owners of an American Bulldog named "Buster." The plaintiff, a neighbor of the defendant, was familiar with Buster. As the dog approached the plaintiff, the plaintiff knelt-down and the dog suddenly bit at the plaintiff's face, severing a portion of the plaintiff's left nostril and upper lip. There was no evidence of teasing or tormenting which would otherwise have served as a defense to the plaintiffs' statutory claims.

Read the rest of the dog bite settlement and Boston Dog Bite Lawyer news announcement.

The end of the school year and beginning of the summer months is a time when children and adults frequently find themselves conducting activities outdoors. This increase in human outdoor activity is also mirrored by that of man's best friend, dogs. Although the relationship between these two species is usually pleasant, situations arise when humans fall victim to dog attacks, including dog bites. An example of such an attack occurred on May 16 in Peabody, when a Pit Bull attacked three women and a police officer. Both the animal and victims were outside of a mobile trailer home when the attack took place. One victim endured roughly 50 dog bite wounds. As a result of the vicious attack the dog was ordered to be euthanized.

Dog attacks occurring within the summertime are a frequent and disturbing headline. Many times the animals will prey upon victims who tend to be incapable of defending themselves. Such victims tend to be children or the elderly. In certain circumstances, the dogs even develop a pack mentality, attacking humans in a group, and working together to deliver potentially fatal injuries to the victim.

In Massachusetts, the owner or keeper of the animal is strictly liable for dog bites unless the victim was teasing, tormenting, trespassing, or committing another tort at the time of the attack. In order to be strictly liable, the plaintiff must prove two essential elements; (1) that the Defendant was a "keeper" of the dog and (2) that the dog inflicted the bite on the Plaintiff. Another cause of action that a plaintiff can bring against an owner or keeper of the dog is a negligence claim. In order for the Plaintiff to prevail on negligence claim the Plaintiff must prove two essential elements (1) that the dog had dangerous and vicious propensities and, (2) the Defendant had knowledge of the propensities.

Certain areas of New England are taking even further steps to prevent dog attacks and dog bites from occurring. The Police Department in Woonsocket, RI, is urging city officials to adopt breed-specific ordinances similar to those established in the neighboring towns of Pawtucket and Central Falls. These ordinances would force pit bull owners to spay or neuter the animal, register it with city authorities, and keep it leashed and muzzled in the public at all times. Further, owners of this breed also are required to have a $100,000 liability insurance coverage policy.

In the past many attacks have occurred as a result of the pit bulls' muscular makeup and harsh treatment by the owners. Head Promoter of the ordinance, Animal Control Officer Doris Kay says that she used to think all dogs were created equal. But she says she's learned that in Woonsocket Pit Bulls bite more often and cause more injury, than any other breed, although there is more to the story. "Virtually all of the serious injuries caused by pit bulls involve animals that are neglected by their owners," she stated. "Most are neither spayed nor neutered, lack the necessary inoculations for rabies or other animal-borne illnesses and have never been to a veterinarian."

Many people feel that the neglect of a few dog owners has unduly given the pit bull a harsh reputation as a ferocious and untrustworthy canine. Although the pit bull may be a product of their owner, the fact remains that, in 2008, half of all dog bites in Woonsocket were attributed to pit bulls. Carmine DiCenso, director of animal welfare at the Providence Animal Rescue League stated "that it can be a very loyal, loving breed but in the wrong hands it's a time bomb. It is impossible to separate the breed from the socioeconomic setting in which they are often forced to live."

The ordinance has been adopted and seen success in both Pawtucket and Central Falls. Since 2004, there has not been a serious pit bull attack within these cities. The ordinance has proven beneficial in numerous ways. It promotes the safety of individuals by mandating that owners of pit bulls be responsible people. .

For more information about your rights in connection with an injury caused by a dog bite or dog attack, or to speak with a member our legal staff, contact us or call our Boston office toll free seven days a week at 866-414-0400. There is never a charge to discuss a potential case.

Dog bites account for a surprising amount of deformities in the US. Over $100 million is spent treating dog bites each year and the number keeps growing. Most common are injuries from a dog bite to the face, and treatments range from cleaning the wound and bandaging to extensive reconstructive surgery. Unfortunately, if the latter is the case, a scar or scars will remain, but with the help of plastic surgery, the appearance can be reduced dramatically. If this has happened to you or your child, you should consult with a Boston dog bite lawyer for a bite to the face.

If you or your child is bitten by a dog, and if the wound is open, you must seek immediate medical attention. Then watch for signs of infection. Symptoms include redness, swelling, streaks of red and fever. Contact a doctor immediately if these symptoms appear. If the bite is serious, then the victim should look into plastic surgery options. Many times, a bite is so deep that nerves, tissue and bone become damaged, resulting in a deformity. A plastic surgeon can analyze the damage and put forth a plan to graft the deformed skin and reattach blood vessels if needed.
Parker Scheer has represented numerous adults and children injured by dogs, involving claims for facial scarring and disfigurement, near amputation of fingers, psychological trauma, and other related injuries and losses.

Early plastic surgery can be a victim's best option, since many insurance companies do not cover surgeries for revision of dog bite scars. They consider them to be "cosmetic" instead of a necessary medical treatment. The amount of surgery needed to receive optimal results will vary. Some patients may only require one or two surgeries while others may have to have reconstruction for years down the line. In the future, the dog bite victim may want to look into sanding or fine repairs to scar tissue to improve her/his appearance. This is why it is best to speak with a Boston dog bite lawyer to help achieve a dog bite settlement.

Cases handled by Parker Scheer involving serious injuries caused by dogs have resulted in substantial recoveries for our clients. Before selecting a law firm to handle your case, take a moment to review the facts with a Parker Scheer trial lawyer experienced in the area of animal attack-related injuries. There is never a fee charged for an initial consultation, and all information will be kept strictly confidential.

Pitbull attacks account for about half of deadly dog bite attacks

Just mentioning a pit bull raises red flags for most people. This breed of dog has been associated time and time again with violent attacks, including death. In 2008, as reported by respected news organizations, out of 23 dog bite fatalities in the US, 16 were sustained from pit bulls - a whopping 65 percent. So far in 2009, the number is eight out 16, a positive change, reducing the percentage to fifty. What provokes these dogs to attack and why so viciously?

The American pit bull originated in the British Isles, bred for hunting, companionship and fighting other dogs. Although they purposefully and historically are not aggressive toward humans, many of these animals have been used in dog fights and are skittish and violent due to horrendous mistreatment or outright abuse by their owners. There have been a few instances where pit bulls that have been raised by a loving and caring family still seem to lash out.

Perhaps the saddest incident was that of Nicholas Faibish, whose family lovingly raised two pit bulls. One day as the family was preparing to move out of their San Francisco home in 2005, the dogs viciously mauled and killed him. What seemed to provoke the attack by these otherwise gentle pets was the disorientation of moving, the boxes strewn all over the house. In the case of this particular incident, experts agree this is what could have set the dogs off. Another theory is that the dogs became overly excited while playing with the boy, thereby escalating to a devastating level. Unfortunately, the boy was left alone in the house with the animals for two hours, thus no one knows the real reason behind the attack. However, it was known that the dogs were male and not neutered, which can lead to aggressive behavior.

Find Out If You Have A Dog Bite Injury Case

If you have suffered injuries from a massachusetts dog bite then contact us for a free confidential dog bite injury case review and receive a response within hours, or call toll free 866-414-0400. If you need a dog bite lawyer outside of Massachusetts, contact us for a referral.

In a follow-up to yesterday's post about the Mattapan, Massachusetts woman who was attacked by "Fritz" the off-duty, Boston police dog, we now read that Governor Deval Patrick's dog, Tobey, may have injured a woman who attended a Town Meeting this week. What's interesting about these two incidents is the way the two victims would be compensated under existing Massachusetts law, had - hypothetically - both dogs inflicted the very same injuries.

In the case of the female Mattapan victim, regardless of the extent of her injuries, the very most she would likely recover against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (as the owner of the dog) is $100,000.00. This would be the maximum recovery, even if the injuries included massive facial disfigurement or death. Massachusetts lawmakers simply do not believe that any injury caused by the negligence of its employees (or its dogs) is deserving of any more than one hundred grand.

Now consider the victim of Governor Patrick's dog, Tobey. While it appears that the injuries inflicted by Tobey were only minor, since Tobey is owned by Governor Patrick, and not by the Commonwealth, the Governor does not enjoy the same protections as those provided to the Commonwealth. Simply put - if both Fritz and Tobey each bit a person's nose off, Tobey's victim might receive hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in compensation, while Fritz's victim would never receive a dime over one hundred thousand dollars.

The Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (G.L. c. 258 section 2) creates two classes of tortfeasor for the purpose of compensating victims: The citizen tortfeasor (which includes individuals and corporations) and the governmental torfeasor. The problem with such a system is obvious: governmental tortfeasors have no real economic incentive to avoid acts of negligence; as the worst case scenarios involve a penalty that the State can easily afford to pay. If a Boston police officer runs a red light while operating his cruiser and kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk - the maximum recovery to which the family of the victim is legally entitled is just one hundred grand - that's before attorney's fees, case expenses, and unpaid medical costs. Not a penny more.

I hate when people say it, but I have to agree - laws only change when lawmakers suffer the tragedies and inequities that their constituents face every day. Only then will the relic that is Chapter 258 be brought in line with 21st century medical costs, wage losses, and other economic damages that victims of governmental negligence presently face as victims.

Eric J. Parker

The "off duty" Boston police dog that attacked a Mattapan woman today may just be the luckiest dog around. Under Massachusetts law, the owner or "keeper" of a dog that causes injury to a person is "strictly liable" to the victim for the damages inflicted. In plain words - if you own a dog, and your dog bites someone, the only question to be answered is: how much is the victim entitled to recover. There is no limit to the amount of the recovery the victim may be awarded by a Massachusetts jury - unless of course, the dog happens to be owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258 Section 2, the absolute most that a victim may recover from the Commonwealth for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the Commonwealth (or-in this case, its dog) is one hundred thousand dollars - regardless of the extent of the injuries inflicted, including wrongful death. The $100,000 limit, a figure established by Massachusetts law-makers long ago, would not begin to compensate a person who suffers debilitating injuries as a result of a dog attack. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts legislature has shown no interest in updating this antiquated law. In more "civilized" States, such as New York, the liability of a governmental body (such as a city or town) is treated no differently than an individual charged with the very same negligence. Had the victim of the Mattapan attack been the owner of a dog who attacked a Massachusetts police officer (an employee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) the owner of the dog would face unlimited liability for the injuries suffered by that police officer. The $100,000 cap simply would not apply. This law is outdated, unfair to victims, and should be updated.  

Insurance companies that insure Massachusetts homeowners have quietly been reducing, if not altogether eliminating insurance coverage previously available to dog owners. The trend began several years ago when a number of homeowner's insurance companies began "black-listing" certain breeds they labeled as "highly dangerous", including Pit Bulls, Doberman Pinschers, American Bull Dogs, and other breeds believed to be more dangerous to humans than other breeds. More recently, however, owners of breeds not listed as "dangerous" have discovered that their homeowners' insurance policies provided a substantially lower limit of coverage for claims asserted against them when their dog did cause injury. Unfortunately, discovering low (or no) limits of coverage after your dog causes injury to another person, can be almost as painful for the dog's owner as it can for the dog's victim.

In Massachusetts, the owner of a dog who bites or otherwise causes injury to another person is considered "strictly liable" for the injuries caused by their dog. The only defense available to the dog owner arises when the victim of the dog attack was shown to have been "teasing or tormenting" the dog at the time the attack occurred. In the absence of evidence of teasing or tormenting by the victim, if your dog bites - you pay! And in some cases, you pay big!

Even a person who does not legally own a dog, but is deemed a temporary "keeper" may be held liable under Massachusettsts' so-called "dog bite law".

If you are the owner of a dog, or you "keep" a dog owned by another person, be sure to speak with your homeowner's insurance company or insurance agent to confirm whether you indeed have coverage for dog-related claims, and exactly how much coverage is available to you "per claim". If the amount of dog-related coverage is lower than the limits of coverage available to you for other categories of claims, be sure to ask your insurance company or agent whether you can purchase higher limits for dog-related liability. If not, consider moving to an insurance company that can provide you with higher insurance limits.

Parker Scheer attorneys have significant experience representing adults and children seriously injured by dogs. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a dog-related injury, contact us seven days a week at 866-414-0400. There is never a charge to discuss your case. [Read More]

Massachusetts State Senator Stephen Buoniconti has filed a bill calling for the establishment of a dangerous dog registry. According to published reports, Buoniconti was motivated by the recent attack of a 9-year-old Springfield, Massachusetts girl by a bullmastiff. Reports indicate that the very same dog was involved in another attack just last year.

The proposed legislation would allow local animal control officers to compile lists of dogs that have bitten or otherwise attacked humans. The registry would be available via the internet and would include a description of the dog, along with a photo and the name and address of the dog's owner. The bill would exempt dogs that bite or attack humans who enter upon property without consent.

Under current Massachusetts Law (G.L. C. 140 Section 155: Liability for damage caused by dog; minors; presumption and burden of proof):
If any dog shall do any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or if the owner or keeper be a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an action under this section is brought, is under seven years of age at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the defendant in such action.

The added benefit of the proposed legislation is that it would allow victims of dog bites to more effectively avail themselves of the punitive damage provision contained in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 Section 159, which provides for "treble" (triple) damages for injuries caused by dogs ordered to be restrained.  Currently, victims of violent dogs have a very difficult time proving that the offending dog had a prior history of attacks on humans. Through the creation of the dangerous dog registry, victims could verify whether the offending dog had a violent history and could then seek to determine whether a restraining order had been ordered by animal control. If a restraining order had in fact been ordered, and the order was shown to have been violated by the dog's owner, the victim would be entitled to have the jury award tripled.

According to the language of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140 Section 159:
If a dog which the selectmen of a town, chief of police of a city or the county commissioners, or, upon review, a district court, shall have ordered to be restrained shall wound any person, or shall worry, wound or kill any live stock or fowls, the owner or keeper of such dog shall be liable in tort to the person injured thereby in treble the amount of damages sustained by him.

The proposed bill would also benefit those who purchase or adopt dogs, by providing more information about the dog's history, which is often unavailable through the usual animal adoption process. 

Eric J. Parker