H. Stanley Harris, P.C.
130-A North McDowell Street
Charlotte, NC 28204-2268
Phone: 704-334-5600
Fax: 704-334-1654
DOG ATTACKS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Victims of dog bite injuries in North Carolina can establish liability for their injuries and damages by the use of two main theories of recovery. First, there is a strict liability cause of action if the injured party can prove knowledge by the dog’s owner or keeper of the dog’s dangerous or vicious propensities (the Vicious Propensity Rule). The other major theory of recovery by an individual bitten by a dog is to prove the negligence of the owner of a dog of a certain breed that is known to have general propensities such as aggressiveness toward people or other animals, protective of its space, unpredictable behavior, temperamental demeanor, and/or being suspicious of strangers. It would then be negligence if the owner did not restrain the dog such that it cannot come into contact with unsuspecting humans.
The most common avenue of recovery in dog bite cases is pursuant to the vicious propensity rule. Under the law, a dog bite victim must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that (1) the animal was dangerous, vicious, mischievous, or ferocious, or one termed in law as possessing a vicious propensity; and (2) that the owner or keeper of the animal knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensity, character, and habits. The essential element of the cause of action is the wrongful keeping of an animal with the prior knowledge by the keeper of its viciousness prior to it injuring the victim. The main issue in such actions is the keeping and harboring of an animal, knowing it to be vicious. Usually, proof of a prior bite or attack on another person is sufficient to put the owner or keeper on notice of the animal’s vicious propensities which allows the current victim to maintain an action against the owner or keeper in strict liability for the damages done to the victim by the vicious animal. Additionally, proof of notice of vicious propensities of the animal to one family member is sufficient to provide notice of same to the owner or keeper of the animal in dog bite cases.
Normally, proof of the vicious propensities of a dog known to the owner or keeper is sufficient to allow the victim to collect compensatory damages for the victim’s medical expenses, lost wages, permanent scaring, pain, suffering and mental anguish resulting from a dog bite attack. Additionally, the permitting of a dog, which is known to have previously attacked a human being without provocation, to run loose in an area inhabited or occupied by other people is evidence of a reckless or wanton indifference to or disregard for the safety of others sufficient to support an award of punitive damages to the victim. Punitive damages are in excess of compensatory damages, and are those damages awarded to a victim in order the deter egregious, reckless, or wanton conduct in the future.
A second avenue of recovery by a dog bite victim is pursuant to a negligence or premises liability theory of recovery. Pursuant to this avenue of recovery, a victim is required to prove by a greater weight of the evidence that the defendant/owner was negligent in his/her acts or omissions as owner of a dog since he/she was chargeable with the knowledge of the general propensities of that particular breed of animal. For instance, if a person owned a dog of a breed that had known general propensities for aggressive and temperamental behavior, suspiciousness of strangers, protective of its space, or unpredictable demeanor, then failure of that person to act to restrain that animal from contact with potential unknowing victims is actionable under a negligence theory. However, such cases would be highly dependent upon the established general propensities of the offending animal, and proof of the general propensities of the animal would be of extreme importance in pursuing a negligence cause of action against the owners of that animal. If it was proven that a reasonably prudent person could foresee that a dog of a certain breed could be dangerous to the public, the owner is charged with the duty to restrain the dog from coming into contact with members of the public.
In conclusion, almost every dog bite case in North Carolina is fact specific, and many variables must be explored and answered before a determination can be made as to whether a viable cause of action exists for a dog bite attack in North Carolina.