Can I sue neighbors/sheriff's dept?

[wheatbug]

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

We live in a rural area. Our dog got out of our yard. She doesn't have a history of doing this. She was gone less than 5 minutes when we noticed and the entire family went outside to find her. Within one minute of all of us screaming her name, we heard/saw a gunshot from across the road where our closest neighbors live. My dog was shot and the round passed right by my husband's head. From what we can all figure out from the wound, etc, the dog had to have been in the road, NOT the neighbors open yard. And she had to have been coming HOME at the time she was shot, therefore not attacking anyone. I won't go into how she's not aggressive. I know all dog owners claim that. But she is old and fat and from the speed at which she appeared in our driveway, there's no way she could have been all the way over at the neighbors house.

Anyhow, we get her to the vet at the closest town (40 minutes away) and luckily they stayed late for her. As soon as we checked her in, we went outside and called the sheriff's dept as it happened in their jurisdiction. They promised to send someone out to the vet to get a report.

My husband is a disabled vet with PTSD. Once we are at the vet, he starts to lose it because of how close the round came to his head. We ended up having to call 911 because he was having really bad flashbacks and approaching a breakdown. The vet stayed even later to wait for the deputy in case he needed to see the dog or anything. The paramedics, the fire truck and the fire chief all waited for the deputy to arrive as well, so he could get my husband's statement. When the deputy arrived, he listened to my tale of woe. Paramedics offered to let him speak to husband since he was doing ok at the moment. Deputy refused to speak to him. Same with the vet. He didn't take any statements, not even mine. He took no notes. He blew us off completely. He said, "When (husband) gets out of the hospital, if you still feel like making a report, give us a call back then." I told him that the last time husband was in the hospital for psych reasons, he was there three months. He said, "Well wait a few days, wait until everything calms down, and call us then if you still want to."

1. I feel my neighbor shouldn't have shot my dog, but since I don't know FOR SURE if she was in the road, I can't say. I'm sure a warning shot would have been just as effective.
2. I feel my neighbor was negligent in discharging a .45 in my husband's direction, while he stood there in full view, calling our dog. She nearly killed him.
3. I feel the deputy was required to take a report/file a report/etc - some something so there is a record of my neighbor doing that. People are telling me to just keep calling until they send someone to take a report but I feel ONE call should be sufficient, especially since I had a deputy standing RIGHT THERE and he did nothing.


Do I have any sort of case against either the neighbor, the deputy (or the dept he represents) or both?

RANDOM NOTES: After surgery and a hefty vet bill, my dog is alive. She has about 12 inches of stitches, drains, etc and is on 3 medications right now. My husband, well I don't really know how he is. He was transferred from the local hospital to a psychiatric hospital 24 hours after transport from the vet. Also, I can get statements from the people at the veterinary clinic as well as the paramedics. My minor daughter was also outside calling for the dog. She was visible from the neighbors point of view as well.

 

[TigerD]

Against the deputy -- probably not.
Against the neighbor -- maybe, talk to a local lawyer.

Good luck.
DC

 

[quincy]

You can go to the following website to check out dog laws in Colorado that are applicable to you and your situation: http://www.animallaw.info/. It is an easy-to-navigate site.

I am sorry to hear about your husband's adverse reactions to the shooting and hope he recovers soon. It is good to hear that your dog is alive.

You may want to, after a review of the laws, contact an attorney in your area to go over legal options.

 

[LdiJ]

Against the deputy -- probably not.
Against the neighbor -- maybe, talk to a local lawyer.

Good luck.
DC

I am not entirely sure that the deputy isn't at risk.

 

[quincy]

I am not entirely sure that the deputy isn't at risk.

That is probably why DC used the word probably.

It is hard to be entirely sure of anything, based on a single forum post. A personal review of all facts would be necessary to even come close to an "entirely sure."

 

[TigerD]

Getting past qualified immunity is always a significant hurdle.

DC

 

[LdiJ]

Getting past qualified immunity is always a significant hurdle.

DC

I am thinking more in the terms of disciplinary action.

 

[CdwJava]

1. I feel my neighbor shouldn't have shot my dog, but since I don't know FOR SURE if she was in the road, I can't say. I'm sure a warning shot would have been just as effective.

There is likely no requirement for a "warning shot," and no guarantee that it would have had the desired effect of scaring off the dog in the first place.

Whether the neighbor felt threatened or not is a question that hasn't been answered. They might have been well within their legal rights to try and protect themselves from an animal that was coming at them ... if, that's what was happening.

2. I feel my neighbor was negligent in discharging a .45 in my husband's direction, while he stood there in full view, calling our dog. She nearly killed him.

Negligent, perhaps. But, not because your husband was calling for the dog, but because he or others were in the line of fire. That will be a decision for the Sheriff's Department and the prosecutor to decide.

Unless the shooter was on the ground shooting at a leaping dog, how did a round HIT the dog and THEN go past your husband's head? A shot to the dog would almost certainly have been in a downward angle unless from a distance where it might have been merely low. And, I doubt that you husband was laying on the ground when he was calling the dog ... was he? To me this says "ricochet" or a skipped round, in which case the negligence might be mitigated.

3. I feel the deputy was required to take a report/file a report/etc - some something so there is a record of my neighbor doing that.

What you "feel" is irrelevant. It is unlikely that the LAW requires the Sheriff's Department to make a report, but agency policy MIGHT require it. Maybe. Even then, the failure to take a report would be a personnel matter and not one of negligence or a tort.

People are telling me to just keep calling until they send someone to take a report but I feel ONE call should be sufficient, especially since I had a deputy standing RIGHT THERE and he did nothing.

I suspect that if your husband was freaking out the deputy didn't want to exacerbate the issue with him any more than it already had been.

You can certainly call the sheriff's Department and ask them to take a report on the incident and ask if the act by the neighbor constituted an unlawful discharge of a firearm. Whether the SD WILL come and take a report or not is another question. They may see it as a civil matter and not a criminal one. But, since a dog was shot, I would think they would write up something.

Do I have any sort of case against either the neighbor, the deputy (or the dept he represents) or both?

Neighbor, maybe. The deputy, I don't see it. With the deputy about all you can do is complain to his employer.

I'm glad the dog is okay. Usually, that's not the case after a shooting. Hopefully your husband has recovered from his episode as well.

 

[Three]

What you "feel" is irrelevant. It is unlikely that the LAW requires the Sheriff's Department to make a report, but agency policy MIGHT require it. Maybe. Even then, the failure to take a report would be a personnel matter and not one of negligence or a tort.


I suspect that if your husband was freaking out the deputy didn't want to exacerbate the issue with him any more than it already had been.

You can certainly call the sheriff's Department and ask them to take a report on the incident and ask if the act by the neighbor constituted an unlawful discharge of a firearm. Whether the SD WILL come and take a report or not is another question. They may see it as a civil matter and not a criminal one. But, since a dog was shot, I would think they would write up something.

I do hear you saying that there still might be some requirement for someone to take a report here, but I don't understand why there is even a question about it. I've always heard (anecdotally; I've never asked an authority) that when something happens that might have the potential for trouble, the first thing you should do is file a police report, just so something is on the record in a timely manner. But now it sounds as if police departments can refuse to take or file reports, maybe even in a situation like this? I don't understand.

 

[justalayman]

My dog was shot and the round passed right by my husband's head.

do you have a REALLY big dog? I'm trying to imagine a situation where a person standing and shooting a dog would cause the trajectory of the bullet to move upwards, at an angle that just is so coincidental after ricocheting after hitting some object would cause it to pass near his head or that the initial trajectory was such that in a horizontal path, the bullet was at the height of your husband's head.

Not trying to minimize that apparent carelessness of the neighbor's actions. Just trying to see how the bullet could have actually been a near miss of your husbands head.

But she is old and fat and from the speed at which she appeared in our driveway, there's no way she could have been all the way over at the neighbors house.

Your saying the dog was already back on your property and coming towards you when shot?

 

[LdiJ]

do you have a REALLY big dog? I'm trying to imagine a situation where a person standing and shooting a dog would cause the trajectory of the bullet to move upwards, at an angle that just is so coincidental after ricocheting after hitting some object would cause it to pass near his head or that the initial trajectory was such that in a horizontal path, the bullet was at the height of your husband's head.

Not trying to minimize that apparent carelessness of the neighbor's actions. Just trying to see how the bullet could have actually been a near miss of your husbands head.



Your saying the dog was already back on your property and coming towards you when shot?

If the neighbor was uphill from the dog and the dog was uphill from the OP's husband (which is very possible) that would explain it. They wouldn't even have to be very far uphill.

 

[Three]

Unless the shooter was on the ground shooting at a leaping dog, how did a round HIT the dog and THEN go past your husband's head? A shot to the dog would almost certainly have been in a downward angle unless from a distance where it might have been merely low. And, I doubt that you husband was laying on the ground when he was calling the dog ... was he? To me this says "ricochet" or a skipped round, in which case the negligence might be mitigated.

I understand what you're saying here about the path of the bullet, but how would that mitigate liability? Isn't the danger of ricochets, wayward shots and the like one of the reasons for laws against firing guns in residential areas in the first place?

I can see how liability would be mitigated if the shooter was defending himself against a charging dog (if that was even the case), but how would a ricochet carry any less liability than any other reason for hitting something other than your target?

 

[Three]

Wheatbug,

Do you know for sure there was only one shot fired, which somehow passed through your dog and by your husband's head? Did the vet recover a bullet from your dog? Is there any possibility there were two shots, one which hit your dog and a second which went past your husband's head? (You didn't say anything to suggest that, I'm just wondering if it might be a possible explanation.)

You said it was clear from the wound that she was coming home - I assume you meant the equivalent of shooting a human "in the back," and that the vet could tell that. Also, is there blood evidence showing her location when she was hit (that is, in the road and not the neighbor's yard)? Are there any relevant photographs you could take?

What I'm getting at is that if your neighbor shot your dog when she was posing no imminent threat (not in his yard) and/or shot her as she was facing away from him (retreating back to your house), MAYBE you'd be able to go after your neighbor for the vet bills and your husband's medical bills, which probably won't be trivial. It might be worth at least an initial consult with an attorney (I'm not one).

I hope everything turns out okay, for all of you.

[Edited to add: I see what LdiJ said about uphill trajectories - good point. If need be, distances could be measured and diagrams drawn, etc. Do you know where the bullet lodged after it went past your husband's head?]

 

[justalayman]

If the neighbor was uphill from the dog and the dog was uphill from the OP's husband (which is very possible) that would explain it. They wouldn't even have to be very far uphill.

well, maybe but...


no, not that simplistically.


It takes more than simply being on a hill. It would require the shooter to be closer to the ground at their position than the dog is at their position to cause a trajectory that went anywhere other than into the ground in an area relatively close to the dog. It is a simple matter of geometry. Adding a hill does nothing more than taking then entire "picture" and tilt it downward. That does not alter the relative trajectory of the bullet.

Now, if you want to get into various grades throughout the area one can construct a condition that would allow a hill causing the trajectory to be such that it could come close to a point roughly 6 feet from the ground at the husbands position, you can. To do that, you have to have varying grades combined in such a way that the husband would be in such a position that one could draw a (relatively) straight line from the shooter through the dog and passing by the husband's head. To do that, you have to have an increased grade (relatively speaking) from the shooter to the dog compared to the dog to the husband. That increased grade has to be such it would allow for roughly a 4 foot negative difference between the relative height at the husbands point compared to a true line extending from the shooters feet to the dogs feet and continuing in to the husband.

So, is it possible? Sure but so are so many other things. Is it realistic is the question.


but all of that does nothing to what the OP may have available. The use of the gun being fired in the general direction of the OP et al is negligent at least and possibly more. I have a hard time believing there was not more done by the deputy given the facts as described here. Shooting in the general direction of people is a pretty serious issue.

so, what actions does the OP have?

If the shooter had no valid justification for shooting the dog, OP has a valid claim for costs to treat the dog.

OP can speak with the police and possibly the local prosecutor regarding any possible charges on the shooter. OP has no control of whether charges are filed or not.

While I question the deputy's actions, I do not see any action OP would have against the deputy.

 

[Three]

but all of that does nothing to what the OP may have available.

Yes, that's probably true, we're probably over-complicating things.

The only catch MIGHT be if it's necessary to prove that the bullet actually DID go past the husband's head. I don't doubt that it did, but I'm not a court of law. Attorneys for the other side might try to cast doubt, perhaps saying that a vet suffering from PTSD could hear gunfire and think a bullet was whizzing closer to him than it actually was.

Not defending such an argument - I agree with you that the main issue should be firing guns in the direction of people at all. But even if the argument were made, the only proof required might be to show where the bullet ended up after going past the husband's head. Hopefully it lodged someplace where it can be easily found.