How Aggravation of Dog Affects Owner’s Liability

Usually, anyone that owns a pet canine is expected to control it. Yet, it can prove difficult to control a provoked animal. Hence, there are exceptions to the general rule, concerning the obligations of a dog owner.

What does it mean to provoke a canine pet?

• It involves taking any action that a dog might view as a move against it.
• It could involve poking or teasing. In Florida the term “provoker” always refers to someone that has acted in a mischievous or careless manner.
• Still, in a dog’s eyes, even someone that has accidentally tripped over the dog’s body would qualify as a provoker.

Burden of bite victim that intends to file personal injury lawsuit

Each of those victims must prove that the biting attack was not provoked. If the victim produces only flimsy evidence, the owner has hope for a stronger defense, as per injury lawyer in Hamilton.

If the victim’s response were rather aggressive, any evidence of the required proof would be unclear. Hence, a bite victim that had used pepper spray against the four-legged attacker would find it hard to win a personal injury lawsuit.

Suppose a mailman had entered a given yard everyday for more than 10 years, and then one day became the target of a canine’s teeth. That same mailman would have a much stronger proof of the fact that the attacker had not been aggravated/provoked.

Were the canine’s actions foreseeable?

Had the owner’s past experiences demonstrated the pet’s sensitivity? If that were shown to be the case, then the owner would be expected to foresee the likelihood of trouble, upon noting the performance of an aggravating activity.

Had there been a time in the past when someone had aggravated a particular pet, allowing the owner’s eyes to witness the result. If that incident had precipitated a biting attack, then it should have delivered a message. In other words, all dog owners should keep the public safe from any overly sensitive pet.

How could anyone having a canine benefit from proof of provocation, in the moments before an attack?

That might not ensure removal of the need to offer some form of compensation. Still, it could lead to a lowering of the damages. If the damages were to be reduced, then the victim should expect to receive less money, as compensation for the biting injuries.

Keep in mind, though, that the age of the provoker has an effect on the final decision. Legally, a child cannot be held responsible for his or her actions. The child’s parents are supposed to limit the extent to which their son or daughter might act a bit careless, when near dogs’ territory.