Everyone loves dogs, right? Sure, but what about their owners? When owners of dogs and other wild and domestic animals fail to train, restrain or confine their pets and other animals with a leash or an enclosure, those animals can run free and inflict bites and other injuries serious enough to require medical attention.

We have represented many innocent victims of attacks by dogs who have suffered serious puncture wounds, disfiguring scars, loss of vision, loss of teeth, infection, etc. But bites and scratch wounds are not the only danger. Unrestrained animals create other, potentially deadly hazards. For example, we represented several professional motorcycle factory test riders who were seriously injured when an unrestrained large-breed dog charged them on the roadway as they passed by his yard. The dog actually collided with one motorcycle, causing both that rider and the rider following to crash to the pavement. The dog's owner was sued for her failure to control and confine her dog in accordance with the state and local leash laws. Her homeowner's insurance policy paid our clients the full policy limits.

In a recent jury trial involving a dog, the owner was "playing" with his dog, throwing his dog's favorite toy around the room. Our client, the plaintiff, was not involved and was resting on the bed trying to watch television. Without warning, the owner pretended to "hide" the dog's toy under the plaintiff's pillow. The dog pounced on the plaintiff's head and face, forcibly striking her eye and causing a permanent loss of vision and disability. The jury found the owner negligent and awarded the plaintiff $275,000. Moreover, the judge in the case also found the defendant "strictly liable" for violation of the Arizona laws requiring dog owners to keep their dogs leashed or confined to enclosures.

Keep in mind that injuries can be inflicted by many species of animal, including horses, cattle, cats, large birds, and of course dogs. And dogs that bite are not just the "the usual suspects" (Pit Bull, Doberman, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, Akita and Presa Canary). In fact, the dog mentioned in the case mentioned above involving the motorcycle accident was a yellow Lab. Sadly, he had a negligent owner who never trained -- or restrained -- him.

Again, it is the owners, not their animals, who are responsible when bites, attacks or other serious injuries occur. In Arizona, most individual counties and cities have their own particular "Leash Laws." In addition, the State of Arizona has laws that generally prohibit an owner from letting his dog run free or "at large," and require dogs to either be kept on leashes or confined to enclosures, such as kennels, fenced yards, or inside their owner's home. Not only does this keep the animals from escaping and running "at large," it also helps prevent innocent people, including children, mail carriers, deliverymen, etc., from being attacked by unrestrained animals.

Despite what many people have heard, an owner can be held responsible even if their dog has never bitten anybody before! Arizona does not permit any dog "one free bite."

Consider the following Arizona State laws:

A.R.S. §11-1001. Definitions:

In section 13-1208 and in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

2. "At large" means being neither confined by an enclosure nor physically restrained by a leash.

A.R.S. §11-1020. Dogs; liability. Injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog while at large shall be the full responsibility of the dog owner or person or persons responsible for the dog when such damages were inflicted.

A.R.S. §11-1025. Liability for dog bites. A. The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness.

The Arizona Supreme Court referenced both statutes when it held:

"Owners are held strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs' actions and liability is imposed without regard to an owner's knowledge of the dog's viciousness." Murdock v. Balle, 144 Ariz. 136, 137, 696 P.2d 230, 231 (App.1985). The owner is virtually an insurer of the dog's conduct. The only defense to this statutory action is proof that the injured party provoked the dog. A.R.S. § 24-523; Litzkuhn v. Clark, 85 Ariz. 355, 360, 339 P.2d 389, 392 (1959); Murdock v. Balle, supra; James v. Cox, 130 Ariz. 152, 157, 634 P.2d 964, 969 (App. 1981); Toney v. Bouthillier, 129 Ariz. 402, 409, 631 P.2d 557, 564 (App.1981).

A.R.S. §11-1020 permits a person injured by a dog while at large to recover simply by proving that the statute has been violated. If the elements of the statute are satisfied, the legislature has decided to impose liability without fault. Moreover, the cases make clear that the “at large” language applies even when the dog is on the owner's property, so long as he is not leashed or otherwise in an enclosure, such as a kennel. (See, e.g., Jones v. Manhart, 120 Ariz. 338, 585 P.2d 1250 (App. 1978); Murdock v. Balle, 696 P.2d 230, 144 Ariz. 136 (Ariz.App.Div.1 02/21/1985)). The statute protects any person who is lawfully present on public or private property, including the defendant dog-owner's home. The only defense to liability is proof that the injured party provoked the dog. See A.R.S. §11-1027, infra. See also, Litzkuhn v. Clark, 85 Ariz. 355, 339 P.2d 389 (1959); James v. Cox, 130 Ariz. 152, 634 P.2d 964 (App.1981).

The provocation defense is set out in A.R.S. §11-1027:

11-1027. Reasonable provocation as defense

Proof of provocation of the attack by the person injured shall be a defense to the action for damages. The issue of provocation shall be determined by whether a reasonable person would expect that the conduct or circumstances would be likely to provoke a dog.

Moreover, if it is later proven that the dog has bitten or attacked on prior occasions, and the owner knew that, then the owner will face even more serious civil and even criminal penalties. Pet owners actually have very few defenses when their animals injure or even kill somebody while the animal is unleashed and/or not confined. Unless it is shown that the injured person was trespassing, or that he teased, tormented or somehow provoked the animal (or entered the enclosure), then he probably has good legal grounds to recover monetary damages for his injuries from the animal's owner.

IMPORTANT: If an insurance claims agent for the person at fault calls to "interview" you, decline -- at least until you have spoken with an attorney. Despite what the insurance agent might tell you, he is NOT "just trying to help."

If you or a loved one live in the greater Phoenix area and have suffered serious injuries after being bitten or attacked by a dog or another privately owned animal, it is important to know your legal rights. As mentioned above, those rights may vary depending upon the laws of your particular city or county. Our firm can assist you in determining your legal rights and help with insurance claims and requests for compensation.

Contact us online or call at 480-281-3838 to arrange a consultation. When results matter, choose The Watkin Law Office, P.C.

The Watkin Law Office, P.C. represents serious injury and wrongful death clients throughout Arizona, including Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Cave Creek, Carefree, Fountain Hills, Paradise Valley, Surprise, Queen Creek, Apache Junction, Goodyear, Casa Grande, Gila Bend, Tucson, Flagstaff, Sedona, Prescott, Wickenburg, Sun City, Anthem, Payson, Yuma, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Show Low, Pinetop, Lakeside — Maricopa County, Pima County, Pinal County, Coconino County, Yuma County, Navajo County, Apache County, Mohave County, Yavapai County and Gila County.