A friend of mine looked up Mr. Grossman on the internet and he drove out to Longview, TX, which is a couple hour drive, to see me while I was pretty much on my death bed. He came out there and it's been a situation where I wouldn't have been able to do what I've done without him.
-
C. Argueta
Automobile Accident Case
Fatal Dog Attacks
Wrongful Death Lawyer Michael Grossman Explains Your Legal Options After a Loved One is Killed in a Fatal Dog Attack
If your loved one was attacked and killed by a dog (while on someone else’s property or not), then you may have the right to seek wrongful death damages under premises liability laws.
Whenever someone visits a property, he or she has an expectation that the property owner will take reasonable action to protect his or her safety. Exactly what duty is owed depends upon the nature of the visitor, and we’ll discuss that in a moment. Thus, if someone is fatally attacked by dogs on the property as a result of the property owner’s negligence, then the surviving family members of that person have the right to seek compensation through a wrongful death lawsuit under premises liability laws.
On other hand, not every fatal dog attack will be actionable with a wrongful death lawsuit, for not every fatal dog attack occurs due to the negligent actions of the property owner. Only in cases where the owner has neglected his or her legal duties to the visitor can a lawsuit be sought. In order to know whether or you not you have the grounds for a successful lawsuit, you need to consult with a skilled and experienced premises liability lawyer.
At Grossman Law Offices, we’ve been handling wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits involving premises liability issues for 20 years, so we know how badly this tragedy has rocked your family. We know that at the moment you’re in anguish, and filing a lawsuit is likely the furthest thing from your mind. However, we also know that many people cannot begin recovering emotionally from such a loss until they have begun to recover financially. Moreover, the only means the surviving families have of finding justice after their loved one is fatally attacked by dogs is to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the property owner. We might not be able to make you heal emotionally, but we can help you recover financially. To discuss your case in detail with a trained professional and learn whether or not you have a legitimate wrongful death case, call us now for a free consultation at 1-855-589-5645 (toll free). Until we speak, let us provide you with some more information about premises liability issues, so you can feel more comfortable about your legal situation.
Types of Visitors
When it comes to fatal dog attacks on someone else’s property, whether or not a visitor’s family can pursue compensation from the property owner depends upon what type of visitor was killed. Each type of visitor is due different duties of safeguarding safety by the property owner. The three types of visitors to property are:
- Invitees – a person who visits a property willingly and knowingly, and both the visitor and the property owner benefit by the visit. Someone shopping in a salvage yard would be an example of a an invitee, for he or she benefits by purchasing something needed, and the property owner can benefit by making a sale.
- Licensee – a person who visits a property willingly and knowingly for the purposes of his or her own benefit. For legal purposes, a licensee is anyone who stops over at a friend’s house to visit.
- Trespasser – a person who visits a property willingly, knowingly, and illegally without the consent of the property owner. Burglars are trespassers.
Legal Duties Owed to Visitors
There are three different types of duties that property owners owe to the different types of visitors. They are:
- Seeking out dangerous conditions and warning visitors. For instance, if a guard dog is chained up in a lot, but the dog can occasionally pull free of the restraint.
- Warning of any existing dangers. If a business or a home has a dog that has been known to be dangerous, then it needs to put up warning signs. You’ve seen them: “Danger: Guard Dog,” or “Warning: Dog.”
- Avoiding causing intentional harm to visitors. Property owners cannot set booby traps for burglars or train a guard dog to kill. If they do, then they are liable for any people killed by the dog.
Now, invitees are the only visitors afforded all three duties. Licensees can expect that they will not be intentionally harmed by a property owner’s dog, and they must also be warned of the presence of any dangerous dogs on the premises. However, trespassers are only protected from wanton attacks by dogs that have been trained to kill when no warning signs are posted because that would constitute an intentional attack. However, if a burglar ignores a warning sign and attempts to kill a guard dog with a knife, only to lose that mortal battle, then there is no liability for the property owner just the same as if the trespasser had broken his or her neck after tripping and falling down the stairs.
Possible Compensation After a Fatal Dog Attack
If you have lost a loved one in a fatal dog attack after a property owner failed to perform his or her duty owed to your family member, then you have the right to seek compensation in the form of a wrongful death lawsuit through which each member of your family who suffered as a result of the death can obtain restitution for the harm sustained. Families can seek both wrongful death and survival damages. The spouse, children, and parents, are eligible to go after wrongful death damages, which compensate these people both for the financial losses they have shouldered as a result of the untimely death, but also, for the emotional turmoil through which they have lived. Wrongful death damages may include restitution for:
- Funeral expenses.
- Loss of financial support supplied by the victim.
- Loss of the irreplaceable familial love supplied by the victim.
- Mental and emotional turmoil suffered by the surviving family members.
While wrongful death damages can be sought by all of the members of the immediate family, only the closest living relative is eligible to seek survival damages, which give this person the chance to seek the damages due to the victim for the ordeal to which he or she was subjected. Survival damages may include restitution for:
- Medical expenses charged to the victim before he or she was declared dead.
- Pain and suffering.
- Mental and emotional anguish.
Of note, the family will file one comprehensive lawsuit to obtain both wrongful death damages and survival damages, but in Arkansas, the family must name an executor of the estate to handle the comprehensive suit before moving forward with any legal action.
While anyone can prove damages like medical expenses by producing the specific bills for the charges, other damages are much harder to estimate for non-lawyers and inexperienced attorneys. For example, how can you value the victim’s suffering as he or she was being attacked by the vicious dog? Doing so accurately requires experience with other cases of a like ilk and having experience with demanding damages for other clients.
At Grossman Law Offices, we have been dealing with premises liability, wrongful death, and personal injury lawsuits for over two decades. Throughout Texas and Arkansas, we’ve helped hundreds of grieving families recover from the loved ones they’ve lost by obtaining the compensation they deserve. We’ve developed a hard-fought reputation as a law firm to be reckoned with among both insurance companies and defense lawyers. As a result, many of our clients are able to get their hands on fair settlements without having to go to trial, as our track record often inspires compliance. To find out what we can do to be of assistance to your family, call us now at 1-855-589-5645 on our toll free line. We give you the opportunity to have a free consultation with someone who can give you an idea of where you stand legally.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00
Recovery for the father of a young man who was killed in a car accident.
$95,035.00
$31,678.00
$25.00
(policy limits were $100k) Recovery for wife of a motorcyclist who was killed in a drunk driving accident.
$97,500.00
$48,750.00
$0.00
(policy limits) Recovery for wrongful death/ nursing home negligence which resulted in bed sores which became infected.
$100,000.00
$33,133.00
$400.00
Our attorneys were hired to represent the family of a middle aged woman who was killed in a car accident. The incident occurred as another vehicle struck the car that the decedent was a passenger in, head-on on the passenger side. The impact resulted in catastrophic injuries which claimed the life of the decedent.
Our attorneys were hired soon after the accident and we launched a full investigation. Through the course of our investigation, it was soon determined that the head-on collision was caused a failed component in the defendant's vehicle (the particulars of which cannot be elaborated upon per the resolution agreement). Suit was filed against the manufacturer of said component and litigation commenced. The case was successfully resolved through litigation.
$3,200,000.00
$1,280,000.00
$50,000.00
Recovery for client who suffered contusions and a soft tissue knee injury in a slip and fall.
$50,500.00
$19,102.00
$265.00
Plaintiff alleged that an insurance carrier unfairly denied a claim, resulting from a non-fatal fire in an airplane. Our attorneys satisfactorily resolved the claim without the need for litigation.
$1,500,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
Our attorneys were hired to investigate a fatal motor vehicle accident involving an 18-wheeler that claimed the lives of several men, the family of one in particular which our firm represented, felt that the official version of events as outlined in the police report was not an accurate portrayal of the facts and circumstances of the collision.
Our firm launched an investigation, the findings of which served as the basis for a subsequent lawsuit. We were able to determine that the defendant's accusations of contributory negligence on behalf of he driver of the vehicle did appear to be valid and plaintiffs conceded as much. However, the plaintiffs were adamant that the contributory negligence did not entirely overshadow the negligence on behalf of the defendant truck driver.
Through physical evidence and an admission of liability that our attorneys were able to importune from the defendant under oath, we were able to show that the defendant had indeed pulled into the path of the decedent's vehicle, which was of consequence irrespective of the decedent's own contributory negligence, and that icontact.com
$250,000.00
$82,500.00
$10,000.00
(policy limits) Our firm was hired by the wife and children of a retired Army Colonel who was killed in an underide 18-wheeler accident. In addition to being a decorated veteran, the decedent worked both professionally and on a voluntary basis to establish numerous learning institutions and vocational programs for at risk youths. The accident occurred as the decedent was traveling on a rural highway when an 18-wheeler failed to yield the right of way and made a rolling stop through a stop sign.
This placed the trailer of the 18-wheeler in a position whereby it blocked the entire roadway and shoulder, leaving the decedent no option but to collide with the trailer. Witnesses on the scene attempted to revive him but to no avail. Furthermore, while two female eye witnesses struggled to pry open the decedent's door to provide emergency care, the truck driver stayed in his truck and offered no assistance. Despite what appeared to be an incredibly apparent case of negligence on behalf of the defendant, defense counsel refused to accept liability resulting in rather lengthy litigation.
The defendants initially denied the claim based on the allegation that the decedent was speeding and the truck driver therefore could not adequately gauge the amount of time he had to pause at the stop sign. The physical evidence contradicted this notion entirely, notwithstanding the fact that even if the decedent had been contributorily negligent, that would not have outweighed the severe degree of negligence on the part of the defendant. Nevertheless, our attorneys were able to conclusively refute this argument based on eye-witness testimony and the testimony from police investigators who calculated the decedent's speed to be precisely at the posted speed limit. In a desperate and largely unprecedented move, the defendants then designated the state as a responsible third party.
Generally speaking, a defendant will often threaten to designate a third party in order to leverage their position but it is rare that such an arbitrary and arguably frivolous designation is actually carried out. However, that is precisely what occurred and the state was thusly incorporated into the lawsuit by the defendants. The basis of the defendant's argument was that the state erected a large street sign that obstructed the truck driver's view of approaching traffic.
Several months of intense litigation were required to before the defendant finally acquiesced in regard to this argument. The argument was finally abandoned by the defendants when in the first mediation our attorneys presented video footage shot (in a controlled setting) from the perspective of an 18-wheeler driver which showed that the sign simply did not obstruct enough of the roadway in order to be a hazard. The case was ultimately resolved through litigation.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
(policy limits) An incredibly intoxicated driver drove head-on into a vehicle, killing several of the vehicle's occupants. The defendants had limited assets, yet an alternative policy was uncovered, which the defendants argued was non applicable. Under threat of litigation, our attorneys negotiated a settlement for the policy limits.
$300,000.00
$132,000.00
$0.00