My neighbor is suing another neighbor after being attacked by their dog, and I'm wondering about some legal advice that the victim was given

[Music Guy]

What is the name of your state?Georgia

A neighbor of mine (we both live in Cobb County, GA) was bitten by a dog that belongs to another neighbor of ours; that same dog has actually bitten several people in the neighborhood over the past couple of years. When it came time to go to court to determine the resolution of these most recent dog bite charges, the representative from the county Animal Control department said that they were expecting to put the dog down at this point, after so many bites.

The dog’s owner begged with the prosecutor not to put the dog down, and the prosecutor conferred with the lawyer that is representing the neighbor that was most recently bitten (he’s representing her in the lawsuit for damages from that bite; the neighbor was initially in the hospital for four days as a result of the bite/attack); after the prosecutor and the neighbor’s lawyer conferred for a moment, the neighbor’s lawyer took her aside and spoke with her. The lawyer apparently convinced her that if the dog was put down that it would be a bad thing for her lawsuit (he said they wouldn't get as much money ultimately if the dog was put down as a result of the attack), so she (the neighbor) asked the court to override Animal Control’s recommendation and instead give the dog back to the owner. The judge agreed, but only on the condition that the dog be classified as a dangerous/vicious dog and that it be banned from the county once it is released to the owner.

So my question is this: Was that guy correct? Would it really have resulted in the neighbor being awarded a lower amount of money from the lawsuit if the dog was put down, as Animal Control had wanted to do? It seems to me that the dog’s owner could now get a lawyer to argue that specifically because the victim wanted the dog’s life spared and not put down—knowing full well that, while the dog’s owner (who lives right next door to her) is not supposed to have possession of the dog there at the house right next to hers, that the court was very explicit that the only verification that was being put in place to ensure that the owner is complying with the ban from the county would be for someone to report any violation to Animal Control once they have witnessed such a violation—that that indicates that the attack wasn’t really all that bad (that is: they could argue that if she was really traumatized from the attack, she would have simply allowed Animal Control’s recommendation to euthanize the animal to stand rather than overriding it).

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state?Georgia

A neighbor of mine (we both live in Cobb County, GA) was bitten by a dog that belongs to another neighbor of ours; that same dog has actually bitten several people in the neighborhood over the past couple of years. When it came time to go to court to determine the resolution of these most recent dog bite charges, the representative from the county Animal Control department said that they were expecting to put the dog down at this point, after so many bites.

The dog’s owner begged with the prosecutor not to put the dog down, and the prosecutor conferred with the lawyer that is representing the neighbor that was most recently bitten (he’s representing her in the lawsuit for damages from that bite; the neighbor was initially in the hospital for four days as a result of the bite/attack); after the prosecutor and the neighbor’s lawyer conferred for a moment, the neighbor’s lawyer took her aside and spoke with her. The lawyer apparently convinced her that if the dog was put down that it would be a bad thing for her lawsuit (he said they wouldn't get as much money ultimately if the dog was put down as a result of the attack), so she (the neighbor) asked the court to override Animal Control’s recommendation and instead give the dog back to the owner. The judge agreed, but only on the condition that the dog be classified as a dangerous/vicious dog and that it be banned from the county once it is released to the owner.

So my question is this: Was that guy correct? Would it really have resulted in the neighbor being awarded a lower amount of money from the lawsuit if the dog was put down, as Animal Control had wanted to do? It seems to me that the dog’s owner could now get a lawyer to argue that specifically because the victim wanted the dog’s life spared and not put down—knowing full well that, while the dog’s owner (who lives right next door to her) is not supposed to have possession of the dog there at the house right next to hers, that the court was very explicit that the only verification that was being put in place to ensure that the owner is complying with the ban from the county would be for someone to report any violation to Animal Control once they have witnessed such a violation—that that indicates that the attack wasn’t really all that bad (that is: they could argue that if she was really traumatized from the attack, she would have simply allowed Animal Control’s recommendation to euthanize the animal to stand rather than overriding it).

Please have the legal party join, under their own user name, if s/he wishes to have strangers on the internet second guess his/her attorney. Thank You...

 

[Music Guy]

I'm sorry; is there some other place that I should be asking this question?

 

[Music Guy]

I can rephrase the question, if that's preferred:

I have been told that if a dog is put down as a result of a bite/attack, that the victim of the bite/attack will likely recover less in damages as a result. Is that true?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

A local lawyer has local experience and is in a better position to know how judges he is arguing in front of will respond to any situation.

That said, I can easily see how a judge or more importantly a jury might feel some portion of the debt has been paid because the dog was put down.

 

[Just Blue]

I'm sorry; is there some other place that I should be asking this question?

No. You really shouldn't be posting someone's legal issue on the net. Would you like it if your neighbor took it upon themselves to post about YOUR legal issue to satisfy their curiosity?

 

[Just Blue]

I can rephrase the question, if that's preferred:

I have been told that if a dog is put down as a result of a bite/attack, that the victim of the bite/attack will likely recover less in damages as a result. Is that true?

The victim should ask their attorney.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Blue the victim's attorney has already answered the question.

 

[quincy]

I can rephrase the question, if that's preferred:

I have been told that if a dog is put down as a result of a bite/attack, that the victim of the bite/attack will likely recover less in damages as a result. Is that true?

I don't know if less damages would be awarded in a civil action if the dog was ordered euthanized in a criminal case.

It should depend on all facts.

Apparently the attorneys seemed to think that would be the result.

 

[Just Blue]

Blue the victim's attorney has already answered the question.

I know. That's the point. OP is a nosy neighbor.

 

[Music Guy]

Okay, thanks for the advice. I would think that the dog being euthanized would be related to (and the result of) *all* of the bites/attacks as a whole, not just the one bite/attack that the lawsuit would be related to--and I would think that euthanizing a dog wouldn't do anything to make the victim whole again financially (which is what the lawsuit for damages is about), it just indicates that the authorities feel like another attack would be imminent otherwise. But if you feel like a jury would take a different view, then I appreciate your feedback.

 

[Music Guy]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Blue. I'm actually one of the other people that were bitten by this dog.

 

[quincy]

Okay, thanks for the advice. I would think that the dog being euthanized would be related to (and the result of) *all* of the bites/attacks as a whole, not just the one bite/attack that the lawsuit would be related to--and I would think that euthanizing a dog wouldn't do anything to make the victim whole again financially (which is what the lawsuit for damages is about), it just indicates that the authorities feel like another attack would be imminent otherwise. But if you feel like a jury would take a different view, then I appreciate your feedback.

I don't think any of us expressed an opinion on how a jury would see the matter. I think we said that the attorneys seemed to think euthanizing the dog would affect the amount of damages that would be awarded.

Presumably the attorneys have access to facts that make them believe this.

That the dog is now labeled a dangerous dog and must be removed from the County appears reasonable.

 

[Just Blue]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Blue. I'm actually one of the other people that were bitten by this dog.

I'm sorry that you were bit. The dog should have been put down long ago and the owner banned from ever owning a dog again. I would bet it's a pit...Idiot dog owners seem to always have a pit. With that said...It's not appropriate to post about someone's legal issue on the net. I wouldn't like it if someone took upon themselves to do that to me and I would hazard a guess you may not like it either.

 

[Music Guy]

Quincy: Actually, PayrollHRGuy did express an opinion on how a jury might feel. Sorry you missed that. Lots of agitated people here, so I'm sorry for having stirred things up. I posted no identifying details so as to protect everyone's privacy, and I'm sorry that wasn't enough. If this thread is problematic for the forum, feel free to delete it altogether. But "thanks" to those who did respond with attempts to assist.