Complaint lists incorrect statute

[adogsbark]

From the great state of Minnesota: I received a complaint against me for a dog bite incident (newly adopted puppy on leash in pet food store - that invites leashed pets into the store - nipped pet food store manager on nose after she picked open a scab on top of the puppy's head). Plaintiff no longer works at the pet food store and is suing for damages in excess of $50K.

The complaint lists a Minnesota statute, 547.22, that doesn't exist. The statute the attorney meant to use is 347.22. My question is if I answer the complaint, denying liability because there is no statute 547.22 and request summary judgment, will the plaintiff be able to bring the complaint against me again. Or is it smarter for me to proceed with an answer to the complaint and ignore the careless mistake of listing the wrong statute?

Many thanks in advance for any answers!

Doug

[ecmst12]

The correct answer is B.

[Slaw21]

Originally Posted by adogsbark

From the great state of Minnesota: I received a complaint against me for a dog bite incident (newly adopted puppy on leash in pet food store - that invites leashed pets into the store - nipped pet food store manager on nose after she picked open a scab on top of the puppy's head). Plaintiff no longer works at the pet food store and is suing for damages in excess of $50K.

The complaint lists a Minnesota statute, 547.22, that doesn't exist. The statute the attorney meant to use is 347.22. My question is if I answer the complaint, denying liability because there is no statute 547.22 and request summary judgment, will the plaintiff be able to bring the complaint against me again. Or is it smarter for me to proceed with an answer to the complaint and ignore the careless mistake of listing the wrong statute?

Many thanks in advance for any answers!

Doug

You bring your puppy into a store that has a dog/leash welcome policy. The owner of the store proceeds to confront your dog to peel the scab on his head, was bitten and is now suing ?

Does your puppy have a previous record of being prone to violence ? (Hardly since it's a puppy)

I would not loose any sleep over this frivolous case.

[adogsbark]

Originally Posted by ecmst12

The correct answer is B.

Thanks very much.

[adogsbark]

Originally Posted by Slaw21

You bring your puppy into a store that has a dog/leash welcome policy. The owner of the store proceeds to confront your dog to peel the scab on his head, was bitten and is now suing ?

Does your puppy have a previous record of being prone to violence ? (Hardly since it's a puppy)

I would not loose any sleep over this frivolous case.

Hello and thanks for the reassuring words. She, the puppy, didn't have any record of any nastiness. I had adopted her less than 24 hours before from the local Humane Society Shelter and have a statement from the director of the place that she had (has) a sweet disposition and got (gets) along well with other dogs and an eight year old girl who walked her...

[ecmst12]

If you are being sued for $50k, why on earth are you trying to respond to the suit instead of hiring a lawyer? That is extremely unwise. This is not a small claims matter! Do you have homeowners or renters insurance that could provide for your defense?