dogbite case gone bad

[pious1]

BACK IN JUNE, I WAS ATTACKED BY A NEIGHBORS WROTTWILLER AND I RECIEVED A GREATDEAL OF DAMAGE TO MY LEFT HAND. NERVE DAMAGE NOW REQUIRING ADDITIONAL SURGERY.
MY FIRST ATTORNEY TALKED UP THE CASE TO ME AND INSTEAD OF ESTABILISHING LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY HE QUICKLY MADE ENEMIES AND FILED A COMPLANT IN WHICH HE ACKNOWLEGDED A FALSE CLAIM THAT I KNEW OF THE PRIOR VAISOUSNESS OF THE DOG.
GIVEN THAT AND THE FACT THE I LIVED IN AN ASSOCIATION WHICH HE NAMED IN THE SUIT, I WAS NOT WELL LIKED BY MANY RESIDENCES. IN FACT ONE OF THOSE, WELL LET US SAY GLADIS GRABITS TYPES, HAS APPARENTLY STEPPED FORWARD AND SAID I PLANNED THE WHOLE THING.
NOW THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY SAY'S THEY REFUSE TO PAY A DIME BECAUSE THEY FEEL IT'S MY FAULT 100%. NOW I LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND TOTALLY REJECT THESE CLAIMS, WHAT HAPPEN TO THE LAW HERE IN THE STATE. I'M GOING TO LOSE A GREATDEAL OF USE OF MY HAND AND THIS COMPANY CLAIMS I PLANNED TO HAVE THIS 185 DOG EAT MY HAND.BY THE WAY THE DOG WAS NOT ATTEND NOR BEHIND A FENCE IT WAS TIED TO A CABLE BOX IN WHAT'S KNOWN AS COMMON AREA. I'V FIRED MY FIRST ATTORNEY AND BECAUSE OF THE SCREW UP I MENTIONED AND SEVRAL OTHER THINGS, LIKE HE FAILED TO APPEAR AT A DEMUR HEARING, I'M SEEKING ANOTHER ATTORNEY TO SUE HIM. WHAT CAN I DO, I'V HAD TO DISMISS MY OWN COMPLIANT UNTIL AFTER MY SURGERY BUT WHAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS HOPPING COULD BE HANDLED BY CALM AND WITHHONEST AGREEMENT IS NOW TURNED INTO WWIII. I'M SORRY FURSTRATED.

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate. What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

Try attorneypages.com or call the california bar association (los angeles or san francisco) and ask for lawyer referral.

Suing your attorney really won't help until this claim is adjudicated. Also, think about this:

The law of California states generally that the owner of a dog is fully responsible for all damages to the victim who was bitten by a dog (but see Who actually pays the damages, below). A dog does not get "one free bite" in California. The dog bite statute imposes liability on the dog owner, not anyone else; however, any person might be liable if he or she was negligent or maintained custody or control of the dog with knowledge that the dog was dangerous. In cities with a "leash law," violation of the leash law constitutes a form of negligence.
The usual exceptions to liability are these:

The victim was a trespasser
The victim was a veterinarian who was treating the dog at the time of the incident
The victim was committing a felony
The victim provoked the dog
The dog was assisting the police or the military at the time of the incident


3342. (a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered
by any person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or
lawfully in a private place, including the property of the owner of
the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner'
s knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the
private property of such owner within the meaning of this section
when he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed
upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal
regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon
the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an
action pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency
using a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred
while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or
provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the
following:
(1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee
has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal
activity.
(2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
(3) In the execution of a warrant.
(4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim
of the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor
suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that
prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.
(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency
using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy
on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or
military work enumerated in subdivision (b).