Being sued because my dog attacked another resulting in a runaway.

[criss6]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

We bring our dogs to our family place of business everyday. They are in the office portion of the building and separated from the outside by not only the front door, but a dog gate and sign warning people who come in that its a dog friendly business. The UPS guy came in one day and left the door open and my dog saw a small dog being walked outside. She jumped the doggy gate, passed the UPS guy who left the door open and attacked the small dog being walked. We ran out and broke up the fight, and the small dog, who didn't seem to sustain much injury freaked out and ran off. We helped the owner look for the dog for hours with no luck and left her our information. We are now being sued $10K for emotional distress by the owner who ultimately couldn't locate her dog. We are responsible pet owners and have never had a problem like this in the 20-years in business and have always had dogs at our job shop and take precautionary measures to insure that those who walk in the door are forewarned. Note: Its an industrial complex and the area where they were walking the dog was private property (neighboring business' small grass patch). Why they decided to stop, get out of their car there to walk their dog is beyond me. Do they have a case?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

We bring our dogs to our family place of business everyday. They are in the office portion of the building and separated from the outside by not only the front door, but a dog gate and sign warning people who come in that its a dog friendly business. The UPS guy came in one day and left the door open and my dog saw a small dog being walked outside. She jumped the doggy gate, passed the UPS guy who left the door open and attacked the small dog being walked. We ran out and broke up the fight, and the small dog, who didn't seem to sustain much injury freaked out and ran off. We helped the owner look for the dog for hours with no luck and left her our information. We are now being sued $10K for emotional distress by the owner who ultimately couldn't locate her dog. We are responsible pet owners and have never had a problem like this in the 20-years in business and have always had dogs at our job shop and take precautionary measures to insure that those who walk in the door are forewarned. Note: Its an industrial complex and the area where they were walking the dog was private property (neighboring business' small grass patch). Why they decided to stop, get out of their car there to walk their dog is beyond me. Do they have a case?

Offer them the value of the dog and when they refuse let the court know the offer was refused. At the end of the day, that is the most they will get our of their case in small claims court.

 

[tranquility]

There is no negligent infliction of emotional distress in California. It is simply covered under damages in negligence. And, while the cases are shifting on intentional infliction of emotional distress damages in regards to pets, the same is not true for negligence. Emotional distress over the loss of a pet through negligence is not compensible in California. (http://declarationsandexclusions.typepad.com/files/court-of-appeal-opinion---g040324.pdf)

As Antigone* said, the best the other party can hope for is the fair market value of the pet.

 

[Zigner]

Offer them the value of the dog and when they refuse let the court know the offer was refused. At the end of the day, that is the most they will get our of their case in small claims court.

Settlement negotiations are not admissible.

 

[Antigone*]

Settlement negotiations are not admissible.

That is true, but it doesn't really matter they most they can be awarded is the market value of the animal. If it gets that far, the OP might do a little research on the animal and take his checkbook with him.

There is some fault and I'm sure the OP recognizes this. Handling it the way I suggested would just make the whole situation go away much faster.

 

[tranquility]

Settlement negotiations are not admissible.

Negotiations may not be, but a specific type of offer is at damages time (CA civ pro 998).

998. (a) The costs allowed under Sections 1031 and 1032 shall be
withheld or augmented as provided in this section.
(b) Not less than 10 days prior to commencement of trial or
arbitration (as provided in Section 1281 or 1295) of a dispute to be
resolved by arbitration, any party may serve an offer in writing upon
any other party to the action to allow judgment to be taken or an
award to be entered in accordance with the terms and conditions
stated at that time. The written offer shall include a statement of
the offer, containing the terms and conditions of the judgment or
award, and a provision that allows the accepting party to indicate
acceptance of the offer by signing a statement that the offer is
accepted. Any acceptance of the offer, whether made on the document
containing the offer or on a separate document of acceptance, shall
be in writing and shall be signed by counsel for the accepting party
or, if not represented by counsel, by the accepting party.
(1) If the offer is accepted, the offer with proof of acceptance
shall be filed and the clerk or the judge shall enter judgment
accordingly. In the case of an arbitration, the offer with proof of
acceptance shall be filed with the arbitrator or arbitrators who
shall promptly render an award accordingly.
(2) If the offer is not accepted prior to trial or arbitration or
within 30 days after it is made, whichever occurs first, it shall be
deemed withdrawn, and cannot be given in evidence upon the trial or
arbitration.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a trial or arbitration shall
be deemed to be actually commenced at the beginning of the opening
statement of the plaintiff or counsel, and if there is no opening
statement, then at the time of the administering of the oath or
affirmation to the first witness, or the introduction of any
evidence.
(c) (1) If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the
plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the
plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay
the defendant's costs from the time of the offer. In addition, in any
action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court
or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a
reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses,
who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and
reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or
arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the
defendant.
(2) (A) In determining whether the plaintiff obtains a more
favorable judgment, the court or arbitrator shall exclude the
postoffer costs.
(B) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subparagraph
(A) to supersede the holding in Encinitas Plaza Real v. Knight, 209
Cal.App.3d 996, that attorney's fees awarded to the prevailing party
were not costs for purposes of this section but were part of the
judgment.
(d) If an offer made by a plaintiff is not accepted and the
defendant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award in any
action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court
or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the defendant to pay a
reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert
witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually
incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for
trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by
the plaintiff, in addition to plaintiff's costs.
(e) If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the
plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the
costs under this section, from the time of the offer, shall be
deducted from any damages awarded in favor of the plaintiff. If the
costs awarded under this section exceed the amount of the damages
awarded to the plaintiff the net amount shall be awarded to the
defendant and judgment or award shall be entered accordingly.
(f) Police officers shall be deemed to be expert witnesses for the
purposes of this section. For purposes of this section, "plaintiff"
includes a cross-complainant and "defendant" includes a
cross-defendant. Any judgment or award entered pursuant to this
section shall be deemed to be a compromise settlement.
(g) This chapter does not apply to either of the following:
(1) An offer that is made by a plaintiff in an eminent domain
action.
(2) Any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of
the State of California by the Attorney General, a district attorney,
or a city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.
(h) The costs for services of expert witnesses for trial under
subdivisions (c) and (d) shall not exceed those specified in Section
68092.5 of the Government Code.
(i) This section shall not apply to labor arbitrations filed
pursuant to memoranda of understanding under the Ralph C. Dills Act
(Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512) of Division 4 of Title 1
of the Government Code).

 

[You Are Guilty]

Negotiations may not be, but a specific type of offer is at damages time (CA civ pro 998).

Seems to track Rule 68 pretty closely - do people actually use them often in state practice there? (They don't by me, but the state statute for offers of judgment here is much weaker than the FRCP).

I've always wondered why this isn't invoked more often.

 

[tranquility]

Not that much, but I only really follow probate court. I suspect the reason is, most damages are hard to exactly define.