dog attack

I was walking my son's dog on July 6, 2004 A rotweiller came charging from about 100 feet. The dogs owner was calling the dog back, but it attacked my son's dog anyway. I did a lot of dancing to keep the two dogs apart, and received two teeth punctures on my left hand in the process. After the owner was finally able to restrain her dog, I continued home. After examining my son's dog, we found that she needed stitches. To make a long story short, we sent an itemized bill to the owner of the other dog totalling about $265.00 which was for the vet bill, my doctors visit for a tetnis shot, and lost wages for my wife that was $96.00 for the day she had to stay home. The other people sent us a check for everything except for the lost wages, but also wrote on the back of the check something that said "Endorsement of this check releases Rob and Kerri from all liability due to the incident on 7/6/04 with my dog Abby" I am not really upset about the $96.00, but my son is looking into the possibilty of bringing charges against those people, and maybe even having the dog put to sleep. This is not the first time this happened. We were attacked last year also, but there were no injuries involved. My question is about that statement on the back of the check, is it valid ? If I sign and cash the check will my son loose his right to bring charges ? Many thanks from Penna.

forget the check. sue the dog owner/s in small claims court for all of your damages.

have you contacted the police or animal control regarding the dog? If no, why not?

Pa. Yes I did file a report with the police department. They told me the dog's owners would be given a citation.

"My question is about that statement on the back of the check, is it valid ?"
*** If you sign (endorse) the check, yes, a court would very likely take it as a release of liability.

"If I sign and cash the check will my son loose his right to bring charges ?"
*** No one can answer that factually. The problem is, since the check covers the damages to the dog (per your post) AND your tetanus shot, it should have been made out to BOTH of you, with endorsement releases from both. With their failure to properly submit the 'settlement', a court could rule either way..... that the release was valid on both, or only as to your claims. Personally, I think the release would be against both as you were in 'control' of the animal at the time.

"but my son is looking into the possibilty of bringing charges against those people, and maybe even having the dog put to sleep."
*** Neither of those will occur. Simply, by them already paying for the damage caused by their dog, there is no further claim (if accepted). And the civil court has no authority to order the animal put down.

question authority - and use a polygraph!

Short and sweet. Find your State law library and look up animal codes. then if possible look up the County ordinances on animal control.
This dog has a history of assault. In California knowingly keeping a dog that will attack unprovoked (vicious nature) is illegal, and keeping a dog or training a dog to attack on command (without permits and licenses) is a FELONY.
Most states have leash laws. For good reason.
I would contact the police department and file a citizens arrest on the animals owner for 1> lack of ordinary control over a dog with a history of attacks (knowing behaviour, as differentiated from simple neglect) and 2> not keeping that animal on a leash or fenced in.
There is always a claim letter - I would send a claim letter to the person (telling them that you will keep the check uncashed for evidence) and claim not only the actual damages, but the emotional trauma and shock of suffering assault with intent by a 100 pound potentially lethal weapon.
Ask the person in the claim letter if they would like to settle this out of court or if they would like to rent their house from you, the new owners.
See if they get cute with scribbles on the back of checks after that.

IF worst comes to worst and you cannot actually afford to sue them, DON'T TELL THEM THAT! First see if you can "persuade" them to make nice with the demand letter as a crowbar.

jbodden6977 said:

In California knowingly keeping a dog that will attack unprovoked (vicious nature) is illegal, and keeping a dog or training a dog to attack on command (without permits and licenses) is a FELONY.

Click to expand...

Who cares?? The writer is in PENNSVLVANIA, not California!1

I would contact the police department and file a citizens arrest on the animals owner for 1> lack of ordinary control over a dog with a history of attacks (knowing behaviour, as differentiated from simple neglect) and 2> not keeping that animal on a leash or fenced in.

Click to expand...

Are you off your meds again??? First, the police don't 'file citizens arrests'!! Second, the entire concept of a 'citizens arrest' is the CITIZEN!! DOH!!! The police are not called until after the 'arrest' and detention. Finally, this is old news.... the citizen has no right to arrest unless at the time.

Isnt' it incredible how legally inept people feel compelled to post to this forum... even when they have NO idea of the facts!! ??