Defenses Raised in Animal Bite Cases

Animal attack cases can be complicated due to the legal defenses that can be raised to try to prevent you from recovering compensation for your injuries.

For example, under the legal theories of “Contributory Negligence” and “Assumption of the Risk” the owner of a vicious animal who properly warned others of the danger of the animal and safeguarded others from that animal may possibly not be responsible for the injuries sustained by a person who chose to disregard the warnings and as a result of that was injured. The two legal defenses of “Contributory Negligence” and “Assumption of the Risk” are discussed below.

A victim of an attack is “Contributorily Negligent” by failing to exercise care for their own safety, that a reasonable or prudent person, under the circumstances would use, and that failure contributed to the injuries. For example, a person who decides to go on a property that has “Beware of Dog” warning signs clearly posted, and the dog attacks the person, he or she will not, in all likelihood, succeed in recovering damages due to their failure to exercise care for their own safety that a prudent and reasonable person would have, by deciding to enter the property knowing that there was a dangerous dog.

The owner of the animal may also not be liable in our example above under the legal theory of “Assumption of the Risk” because the victim was aware of the risk of being attacked by the animal and assumed that risk anyway.

In order to successfully defend the case, the owner of the animal would have to prove that the victim who was injured by the animal was aware of the risk of being injured by the animal and chose to proceed anyway. This is enough to prevent the victim from succeeding in a case, even if serious injuries were sustained.

However, if the owner of the animal is claiming the defenses of contributory negligence or assumption of risk, the legal burden of proof is on the owner to prove those defenses to the fact finder (either a Judge or a Jury) in the case.

The owner of the animal may try to raise a defense in order to avoid paying the victim compensation for the injuries sustained. Such a defense includes claiming that the victim provoked the animal ,thereby causing the animal to react by attacking the person who provoked the animal first.

Another defense that may be raised by the owner of the property where the injury occurred is the assertion that there was no “duty of care” owed to the person who was injured.

     Maryland law recognizes different legal duties of care owed by the owner of a property to a person on the property, under the legal theory of premises liability. So that if a legal duty exists by law and the person on the owner’s property is injured, the owner may be responsible for those injuries.

The type of duty owed by the owner of a property to the person on the property depends on whether that person is an “invitee” a “licensee” or a “trespasser” on the property.

An invitee is a person invited or permitted to enter the property for purposes related to the owner’s business. The standard of care that the owner must use is reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe for the invitee and to protect the invitee from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee, by exercising ordinary care for their own safety, will not discover.

As an example, if the owner of a property, who has a dangerous dog on the property, invites a person on their property, fails to warn the invited person (the invitee) of the dangerous dog, and the invitee is attacked by the dog, the owner of the property may be liable even if someone else owns the dog. The reason for this is because the owner of the property owed a duty to keep the premises safe and protect the invitee from injury.

The duty of care owed by the owner of a property to a licensee is different than the duty owed to an invitee. A licensee is a person who has proper consent to enter the property for their own purpose. There are two types of licensees, a bare licensee and a licensee by invitation. A bare licensee enters the property as it is and is owed no duty of care by the owner except that the owner may not entrap, or willfully or wantonly injure the bare licensee once the bare licensee’s presence is known. A licensee by invitation is a social guest who takes the property as the owner uses it and is owed the duty to “exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe or to warn of known dangerous conditions that cannot reasonably be discovered and which in fact are not discovered.”

Lastly, a trespasser is one who intentionally and without consent or privilege enters the property of another and is owed no duty of care by the owner except that the owner may not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser.

Therefore using our example above, because the person was not invited onto the property and trespassed on the owner’s property, the owner will probably not be liable for injuries caused to the trespasser by the dangerous dog because the owner did not owe the trespasser a duty of care.