If a Family Member Becomes Witness in a Dog Bite Case
If any person is injured, killed or have serious condition in an accident resulting from the negligence. This person is not only a victim of the incident but the family members also suffer the substantial pain and grief. These are the hard time for the victim and his family members and sometime they fell into emotional distress.
However, there is one case that is associated with the emotional distress i.e. dog bite case. If you are a direct family member and becomes a witness to a dog bite attack to your family member even you are not injured, you are eligible for filing a claim for compensation.
If a child or family member ever gets attack by a dog then you have emotional distress due to close relationship. These attacks happened at several occasions such as if you are taking your child to home from school, the attack happens with your kid. If you are staying as guest to any family member or relative that owns a dog and this dog attacks to your kid. If the family member observes the dog attacking to other member then it will able to start a
…show more content…
They may suffer from terrifying or vivid reappearance of past experience.
How to made compensation claim if you ever become witness of dog bite?
This compensation claim is only eligible for the family members or whether you have close relationship with child or victim. The direct family members have to become the spectator of the event and later they have emotional distress and then they are eligible for the compensation claim. The three steps for compensation claim conditions are given below:
Claiming person must have the close relationship with the victim
Claiming person becomes the spectator of incident and observed the victim’s death or injury
Claiming person got ‘severe’ mental distress after the
calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation and decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 237.7 (2010): 788-792.
National Canine Research Council. Investigative Report for Dog-Bite Related Fatalities 2009. National Canine Research Council, 2010. 6-48. Print.
owner would not be held liable for the first bite of their dog. The first bite, however, was
The claimants are Albert and George, which will be suing Jonathan in the tort of negligence for personal injury/damages. A tort in law is a civil wrong which causes unfair harm. The requirements for tort of negligence was stated by Lord Wright in Lochgelly v McMullan . Negligence is considered as a breach of a legal duty to take care, with the result that the damage is caused to the claimant . Albert and George would need to prove that Jonathan owed them a duty of care which included their deceased friend Victor, and then breached that duty of care therefore causing damage to the
Ridgebacks are known to be very strong-willed, intelligent dogs. He is always very alret and he is aware of what is going on around him. Midway through the walk, a fellow resident opened his door only for his Pit Bull to come charging out without a leash on. Both the dog and Chad were not prepared or expecting what was to follow. The Pit Bull immediately charged toward them. Chad’s dog did nothing but stand by him because he had no idea what this dog wanted. Maybe it wanted to play. As soon as the dog reached them, it bit and latched onto his dog’s ear. Soon the owner came running out. For the next two minutes they frantically tried removing the dog by prying open its jaws which did not budge. They had to resort to literally beating the animal by kicking it in the rib cage. Meanwhile, Chad had to make sure the attacking dog did not pull too much on his dog’s ear so that it wouldn’t be ripped off. The whole time he had to endure his dog’s screams, and there was literally nothing they could do to remove the other dog expect to beat it. Finally the dog let go; Chad and his dog charged back to his apartment with his dog gushing blood the whole way. He had to call the police to get the situation documented. Animal control was eventually brought into the equation and the other dog was euthanized. Chad had to take his dog to an emergency animal hospital. The
Secondary victims must meet the following ‘Alcock criteria’ in order to succeed in a claim for pure psychiatric harm; prove a close tie of love and affection to a primary victim; have witnessed the event with their own unaided senses; have been next to the event or its immediate aftermath and; the psychiatric injury must have been caused by a shocking event. The latter is pointed in Steele, J. (2014) as a control device to prevent a ‘floodgate’ of claims from people who are too remote from the incident. Secondary victims can recover only if their psychiatric injuries were foreseeable in a person of "ordinary fortitude", a legal construction that seems imprecise and sometimes difficult to
If the victim is injured, or suffered physical or emotional distress, they have the right to sue in civil court, where you may be ordered to pay monetary damages such as medical bills, compensation for the victim’s lost days at work, and even money for the pain and suffering caused to the victim.
On the morning of May 17th, 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two-car collision. Police and Ambulance were dispatched and arrive on scene at the intersection of Kenny and Fernley Street. Ambulance conducted various assessments on Ms. Walker which revealed no major injuries and normal vital signs. Mrs walker denied further medical investigation and denied hospital treatment. Later on, Queensland police conducted a roadside breath test that returned a positive reading, police then escorted Ms. Walker to the cairns police station. Ms. Walker was found to be unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. An ambulance was called but attempts to revive her failed (Coroner’s Inquest, Walker 2007). The standard of Legal and ethical obligation appeared by paramedics required for this situation are flawed and require further examination to conclude whether commitments of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice were accomplished.
As your Personal Injury Lawyer Whitby will explain, the dog owner should also be unaware of the fact that his/her dog has the propensity to bite. As per the law, if the dog has bitten or attacked someone, then its owner is liable for its actions and would be held to strict liability. The only main exception to this is when the dog is protecting its owner’s property.
There are many statistics that come with animal abuse. Did you know that 71% of all domestic violence cases state that the attacker harmed the animal(s) as well (animalcruelty.weebly.com ; 5th dot)? 47 out of the 50 U.S. states treat animal abuse as a felony(www.humainsociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/ ;4th paragraph). In all animal abuse cases 64.5% involve dogs (1212 cases, mainly pitbulls), 18% (337 cases), and 25% (470 cases) involve other animals being harmed (www.humainsociety.org/issues/abuse_neglect/facts/animal_cruelty_facts_statistics.html#.u3E...
Third, you should contact a firm of personal injury lawyers. The legal issues surrounding dog bites are often complex because most states (but not all) are strict liability jurisdictions. This means that dog owners are civilly liable for the dog bite as long as the victim neither trespassed nor provoked the dog. In some states, liability is automatic, while in others there are limitations upon it. A dog bite victim should seek counsel to determine if they reside in a strict liability state and to ensure they receive the maximum compensation allowed under the law.
This paper will be exploring the various reasons for establishment of the strict liability rule in dog bite cases which will be complemented with a case study involving a gas meter reader bitten by a dog on private property and whether there are other appropriate rules applicable to such cases.
...rameters and all the aspects of the law that appear in our given scenario we can safely say that any claim that is being made by Tom’s representative by Daria and Samira on the grounds of negligence – breach of duty of care and psychiatric injury would be successful and that even though Harry suffered psychiatric injury his claim won’t be successful since he doesn’t fulfill the necessary parameters in order to make a successful claim.
In the Bahamas, a study was done by the College of Bahamas, and it states that, “.dogs were equally likely to be considered members of the household in homes without domestic violence,” (Fielding 197). Homes with violence show that humans substitute human victims for animal victims. Animal rights activists are trying to break down symbolic boundaries between companion and farm animals.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Animal abuse for pets can range from neglecting to take care of the animal to the actual deliberate abuse of the animal such as beating, shooting, stabbing, or lighting the animal on fire.