{"id":279,"date":"2020-11-19T17:38:14","date_gmt":"2020-11-19T22:38:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sullivaninjurylaw2.southshoredigitalmarketing.com\/?page_id=279"},"modified":"2021-08-20T08:29:14","modified_gmt":"2021-08-20T12:29:14","slug":"dog-attacks","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sullivaninjurylaw.com\/kea\/arias-pratikus\/lezon-pesoal\/atakis-di-katxor\/","title":{"rendered":"At\u00e1kis di Katx\u00f4r"},"content":{"rendered":"
Psoas atakadus pa animal, katxor en partikular, pode ten direitu a kel ki ta txomadu risponsabilidadi strita<\/em> li na Massachusetts. Kel li ta signifika ma niglig\u00e9nsia ka mesti ser provadu kontra donu \u00f4 kuidador di kel katxor pa bo risebe indemnizason pa bos ferimentus. Munti di kes kazus li ka ta involve disputas sobri kenha ki \u00e9 kulpadu pa kel insidenti y kes kazus li ta rikeri apenas un avaliason pa ditermina kes valor monetariu pa kes firimentus sufridus.<\/p>\n Si bo atxa ma bo deve faze kexa na kel \u00e1ria li, \u00e9 inpurtanti pa bo kontakta-no imediatamenti. Nos \u00e9 adivogadus xperientis na atakis di katxor na Boston. Pa m\u00e1s ki bo spera, m\u00e1s probabilidadi tene di perde provas f\u00edsicas inpurtantis y ta fika m\u00e1s difisil pa atxa kalker tistimunha putenti di kel insidenti.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What is often referred to as the “Massachusetts Dog Bite Statute” (although it applies to any injury or damage caused by a dog, not just “bites”), M.G.L. Ch. 140 Section 155<\/a>, provides for potential civil liability against the “owner” or “keeper” of a dog in Massachusetts that causes a person to suffer bodily injury or property damage. Provided certain requisites in the statute are met, the law provides for “strict liability” (essentially an automatic finding of negligence) against the owner or keeper of the dog. For an injured victim to qualify for “strict Liability” against the owner or keeper of the dog under the statute, the following must be demonstrated:<\/p>\n If these two elements are met, then the injured victim is automatically entitled (under “strict liability”) to compensation for their injuries or damages. It does not matter if the dog never acted aggressively before, and proving negligence against the owner or keeper of the dog is not required.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The “owner” of a dog is strictly liable for injury or damage caused by his or her dog, provided the injured victim was not trespassing, engaged in a crime or other tort (civil wrong), or provoking\/teasing\/tormenting the dog at the time of the incident. But “keepers” of a dog can also be held strictly liable. So who would qualify as a “keeper” of a dog? Courts in Massachusetts have determined this to be a question of fact to be determined on a case by case basis. In the 1990 case of Brown v. Bolduc, 556 N.E.2d 1051, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 909<\/a>, the court held that a “keeper” is someone who “harbor[s] with an assumption of custody, management and control of the dog”. The mere presence of a dog does not establish keepership, nor does the simple fact that you have fed, pet, or played with a dog. There needs to be an adequate connection to the dog whereby it’s reasonable to expect the individual to be assuming control or care for the dog, even if only temporary. For example, a dog walker who has formally taken over control of the animal from its owner, even if only for a temporary period of time, could be found to qualify as a “keeper” of the dog during that period of time.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Often, yes. But not always. One (preferably an experienced lawyer) needs to carefully read the insurance policy in question to determine whether or not there’s coverage. The problem is that many homeowner insurance companies have started including exclusions to bog bites and\/or attacks in their policies. Often times these exclusions will only apply to certain breeds of dog known for their violent propensities, but the insurance policy in question will need to read carefully to determine exactly when, and how, any exclusions will be enforced.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kontakta-no<\/p>\n\t Konsulta Gratis<\/p>\n\t\n\t Prefer to schedule a call in advance? Pick a date and time that work best for you with our appointment scheduler<\/a>.<\/p>\n Boston Dog Attack Lawyers Individuals attacked or bitten by an animal, in particular dogs, may be entitled to what is called Strict Liability here in Massachusetts. What this means is that negligence need not be proven against the owner or keeper of the dog in order to collect monetary damages for your injuries. Essentially, many…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":182,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhat is “Strict Liability” Against the Owner or Keeper of the Dog under the Massachusetts Dog Bite Statute?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/li>\nWho is an “Owner” or “Keeper” of a Dog under the Massachusetts Dog Bite Statute?<\/h2>\n
Can Liability for Dog Attacks be established against one who is not an Owner or Keeper of the Dog?<\/h2>\nYes. But not under the “Strict Liability” Statute. To establish liability for a dog bite against someone who is not an “owner” or “keeper” of the dog, the case must be proven under the common law legal theory of negligence.
\n
\nThe most common situation where this issue sometimes arises is with cases involving dog owners who are renters and have no significant assets or insurance coverage of their own. So the question becomes whether or not the owner of the property (landlord) can be held liable, thereby potentially gaining access to the property owner’s assets or insurance coverage, by establishing that he or she was negligent because they “knew, or should have known, that the dog being kept on their property was dangerous, or had a propensity to be dangerous”.\nCan you Recover through the Homeowner’s Insurance of the Owner, Keeper, or Negligent Third Party?<\/h2>\n
What to do Immediately After being Bitten or Attacked by a Dog<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n<\/li>\n
\n
\n<\/li>\n
\n
\n<\/li>\n
\n
\n<\/li>\n
\n
\n<\/li>\n
\n
\n<\/li>\nAdditional Legal Resources<\/h2>\n
\n
\n\t\tSigi-no na Facebook\n\t<\/h2>\n\t
Scrit\u00f3rius di Adivokasia di Christopher Sullivan, P.C.<\/a><\/blockquote>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"