Chelsea Dickerson
Dickerson Oxton attorney Chelsea Dickerson is a dedicated advocate for injury victims, focusing her practice on personal injury and mass tort litigation. As co-founder of the firm, she has helped recover millions of dollars for clients in serious injury, trucking accident, motorcycle accident, and wrongful death cases. Chelsea is known for her aggressive, evidence-driven approach and her commitment to holding insurance companies and negligent parties accountable. She also represents consumers nationwide in complex pharmaceutical and medical device litigation.
If you have been bitten by a dog in the Kansas City area, you may be entitled to compensation. Treatment after any type of animal attack can be costly, with a high risk of infection and the potential for multiple surgeries. Dog bite cases are no exception. If you are having trouble recovering the dog bite compensation you deserve, consider speaking with an experienced Missouri personal injury lawyer. Our compassionate and dedicated attorneys have more than 80 years of combined experience, and we offer a free initial consultation to review the details of your situation and give our honest opinion of your case. Reach us today at (816) 542-6599 to schedule a conversation.
Can You Recover Compensation in Dog Bite Cases in Kansas City?
Kansas City residents bitten by dogs are eligible to recover compensation from the owner in most circumstances. There are some exceptions, but generally the rule is that dog owners are liable for “damages” caused by their pets. Covering the costs of medical expenses arising from dog bite cases is the most common example. Additional considerations specified under Missouri law can affect the amount of compensation a dog bite victim is eligible to recover.
Summary of Dog Bite Cases in Missouri
Missouri dog bite law generally allows injured individuals in the Kansas City area to pursue compensation from dog owners under a strict liability framework, subject to specific statutory exceptions and comparative fault principles.
- Missouri Revised Statutes § 273.036 holds dog owners strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs when the injured individual did not provoke the animal.
- Even in strict liability dog bite cases, Missouri courts may reduce compensation based on the injured person’s share of comparative fault, consistent with the state’s pure comparative fault system.
- Exceptions to recovery can apply when the injured individual was trespassing, unlawfully on the property, or provoked the dog, which may eliminate or limit liability.
Dickerson Oxton represents individuals in Kansas City and throughout Missouri in personal injury matters, including dog bite cases involving questions of strict liability, comparative fault, and recoverable damages.
Missouri Dog Owner Liability
You may be familiar with the concept of negligence in personal injury cases. The vast majority of personal injury lawsuits are brought on this basis. Usually, the need to prove negligence means that to recover compensation in court, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care and breached that duty. The plaintiff will then document their injuries and provide evidence clarifying how those injuries resulted from the defendant’s negligence in following his or her duty of care.
If you have never previously been involved in any dog bite cases, you may not have had a reason to encounter the two types of torts that do not involve allegations of negligence: intentional or deliberate torts, and strict liability. RSMo § 273.036 specifies that pet owners are held “strictly liable” in Missouri dog bite cases where the bite victim did not provoke the attack. If the dog’s owner can show that the individual bitten provoked the dog into attacking, however, the strict liability principle will not apply.
What Does Strict Liability Mean?
The key factor that distinguishes strict liability from deliberate or intentional torts is that, in cases of strict liability, intent does not matter. An injured party does not need to prove that the defendant acted in a way they knew could cause, and indeed hoped would cause, harm. Intentional tort cases are relatively rare, but a similar logic applies to the distinction between strict liability and negligence: In a strict liability case, the plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant acted negligently to recover compensation.
When Is Strict Liability Used?
One reason why negligence is the most common basis claimed for tort cases is that situations in which there is a provable intent to harm are relatively unusual. Additionally, strict liability is only applied, as the Legal Information Institute (LII) explains, in a limited range of circumstances. The breadth of this range, and the specifics that determine whether a given situation qualifies, will vary by jurisdiction, but animal bites are among the scenarios that are more commonly listed as susceptible to the principle of strict liability. Many states, like Missouri, do allow injured parties to pursue compensation on a strict liability basis in dog bite cases.
Are There Exceptions to Strict Liability in Missouri Dog Bite Cases?
Even though Missouri law holds pet owners strictly liable for the damages caused by their pets in most dog bite cases, there are a few situations in which the circumstances of the dog bite can trigger a statutory exception. Certain types of dog bite cases that involve injury to farm animals, rather than to human victims, are exempted because those attacks are dealt with under a separate statute. In addition, individuals who are trespassing or otherwise not lawfully on the premises where a dog bite takes place are not typically eligible to recover compensation from the dog’s owner.
How Much Is Compensation in Dog Bite Cases?
Interestingly, although Missouri law does not require dog bite victims to prove negligence on the part of an animal owner in order to recover compensation, the amount of compensation plaintiffs are awarded in dog bite cases that are resolved in court can be affected by a determination of the plaintiff’s own negligence. To understand how courts use a plaintiff’s negligence in adjusting the amount of compensation a dog bite victim may recover, it helps to briefly summarize some key points about the way an injured party’s responsibility for their own welfare and safety is handled in American jurisprudence more generally.
Contributory Negligence vs. Comparative Fault
In some states, in personal injury cases sounding in negligence, plaintiffs are barred from recovering compensation for damages if they bear any portion of responsibility for those damages by reason of their own negligence. This “contributory negligence” system is obviously somewhat restrictive, so instead of relying on the rule of contributory negligence, many other states apply a principle most often called comparative fault.
In the comparative fault model, injured parties can still recover compensation for damages, but the amount they can recover is reduced by the same percentage as the degree of responsibility they are found to hold for the way in which those damages were incurred. Comparative fault states can be further divided according to whether they follow the “pure” comparative fault model (in which a plaintiff can recover compensation for 10% of their damages even if they are themselves 90% responsible) vs. a “modified comparative fault system (in which the plaintiff is barred from recovering damages once their share of responsibility reaches 50% or 51% of the total, depending on the state).
Apportionment of Responsibility in Dog Bite Cases
Missouri generally follows a “pure” comparative fault model, so in most personal injury cases that go to court, it will be important to determine how much of the responsibility for an accident or other harmful occurrence falls to the negligence of the defendant, and how much should be attributed to the plaintiff’s own failure to take appropriate care. Dog bite cases are distinctive because the dog owner is considered “strictly liable,” provided the bite victim did not provoke the attack. However, even in holding a dog owner strictly liable, the court may still make a determination regarding the degree to which the bite victim’s own conduct contributed to the incident and its outcomes. In other words: A dog bite victim may not have to prove that the dog’s owner acted negligently to claim compensation, but the total amount of that compensation may be reduced by the degree of responsibility the judge or jury (many personal injury lawsuits are conducted as bench trials) determine the individual to hold for the incident.
Why Would a Bite Victim Share Responsibility?
One question many Missourians may have at this point is how victims could ever be held responsible in dog bite cases. The reasons essentially come down to this idea of an individual’s obligation to exercise a degree of caution appropriate to the circumstances. If a bite victim had no legitimate business being on the property in the first place, of course, then Missouri law precludes them from recovering compensation altogether; put dog bite cases associated with trespass or other forms of improper entry to one side for a moment. We are left with individuals who are lawfully on the premises, but who conduct themselves in such a way as to make a bite more likely. Keep in mind that if an individual’s conduct is such that a court considers it to have constituted a form of provocation, the pet owner’s strict liability for the conduct of their animal will no longer be in play.
Implications of Proportionate Adjustments
Of course, the fact that bite victims may be held partially responsible for their own damages, and that compensation in dog bite cases may be reduced proportionately, means that pet owners whose dogs have bitten visitors have a strong incentive to argue that the bite victims brought the bites on themselves. Consequently, at Dickerson Oxton, one of the first steps we will usually take upon reviewing dog bite cases is to thoroughly investigate the bite.
The victim’s own account, as given to our attorneys, is the obvious starting point, but we will also typically need to review the medical records of your treatment for the bite. Missouri law does not require a dog to have an established history of aggressive behavior for an individual who has been bitten to recover compensation, but we will often investigate the animal’s history nonetheless. Sometimes, a history of prior incidents, whether officially recorded at the time or related by witnesses in depositions during trial preparations, can be used to undermine a defense that suggests the dog was unduly provoked by the bite victim.
Speak With a Kansas City Dog Bite Lawyer
Dog bite victims in the Kansas City area may be entitled to compensation for the medical expenses and personal distress caused by the animal attack. Dog bite cases can be emotionally as well as physically and financially challenging. If you are encountering frustrations in your attempts to recover fair compensation from a dog owner, you may find it beneficial to discuss the particulars of your situation with an experienced Missouri dog bite lawyer who may be able to offer perspective and give you an overview of your legal options. Call Dickerson Oxton at (816) 542-6599 to set up a consultation.
Helpful FAQs About Dog Bite Injuries
Listed below are some frequently asked questions about Missouri dog bite cases.
What Is Dog Owner Liability Under Missouri Law?
Missouri law generally holds dog owners strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs when the injured individual did not provoke the animal. This means liability may exist even without proof that the owner acted negligently.
What Does Strict Liability Mean in Dog Bite Cases?
Strict liability means that intent or negligence does not need to be proven to establish responsibility for damages. In dog bite cases, the focus is often on whether the bite occurred and whether statutory conditions, such as lack of provocation, are met.
Are Dog Owners Always Liable for Dog Bites in Missouri?
Dog owners are not liable in every situation. Liability may not apply if the injured individual provoked the dog, was trespassing, or was otherwise unlawfully present on the property where the bite occurred.
Can Compensation Be Reduced If the Injured Person Shares Responsibility?
Yes. Missouri follows a pure comparative fault system, which allows courts to reduce compensation based on the injured person’s percentage of responsibility for the incident, even in strict liability dog bite cases.
How Does Provocation Affect a Dog Bite Claim?
If a dog owner can show that the injured individual provoked the dog, strict liability may not apply. Provocation can include conduct that a court determines made the bite more likely under the circumstances.
What Types of Damages May Be Considered in Dog Bite Cases?
Damages may include medical expenses, future treatment costs, and other losses related to the injury. The specific amount depends on the facts of the case and any comparative fault findings.
Does a Dog Need a History of Aggression for a Claim to Proceed?
No. Missouri law does not require a dog to have a prior history of aggressive behavior for an injured individual to pursue compensation. However, evidence of prior incidents may be relevant in disputed cases.
How Can Dickerson Oxton Assist With a Missouri Dog Bite Case?
Attorneys at Dickerson Oxton work to help individuals understand how Missouri dog bite laws, including strict liability and comparative fault rules, may apply to their circumstances. Consider visiting with an experienced attorney at Dickerson Oxton to learn more about available legal options and potential paths forward.