Massachusetts Injury Lawyer Blog

A Lowell dog attack last week highlighted the need for communities to adopt strong dangerous dog laws and properly enforce them.

Last December, the Lowell City Council passed an ordinance defining a dangerous or vicious dog as one that has attempted a dog bite or dog attack on a person, has a tendency to threaten the safety of domestic animals or is involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking or gang activity.

Once a dog is deemed dangerous, its owner has to obey certain conditions to protect public safety. First, the dog must be kept indoors or in a locked pen. A sign must be posted warning the public that a dangerous dog resides on the property. If the dog is taken off the property, it must be muzzled and kept on a leash no more than 4-feet long. The dog's owner must also hold $100,000 in liability insurance.

Dog owners found to be in violation are subject to fines up to $300. The real muscle behind the ordinance is each day of non-compliance is considered a separate offense.

"I have been called upon to represent children whose bodies have been disfigured by vicious attacks from dogs," said Boston personal injury attorney Ron Gluck of Breakstone, White & Gluck. "In several of the cases, towns had leash laws that were violated by the dog owners. These violations by the dog owners were the direct cause of the serious injuries which will affect these children for the rest of their lives. The stronger the penalties for each violation, the safer children will be."

Lowell also has a "potentially dangerous" dogs ordinance, which seeks to stop dogs who show aggressive behavior before an attack.

In the case of last week's attack, David Spaulding was attacked by his own two 16-month-old pit bulls, Venom and Rampage. A neighbor broke down the padlocked fence to Spaulding's backyard and threw pickets from the fence at the dogs.They eventually ran off and Spaulding was taken to the hospital with injuries to his head, arms and torso. The dogs were immediately euthanized.

The Boston law firm of Breakstone, White & Gluck is experienced at handling pit bull attack cases and typically sees cases of dogs attacking neighbors and children, not homeowners themselves. There are red flags about this attack that we don't have enough information to address - including a newspaper report that the dogs had been involved in a previous attack of a puppy.

But the Boston lawyers at Breakstone, White & Gluck believe if properly enforced, Lowell's dangerous dogs ordinance has the teeth to protect the public.

Read about a proposed Andover pit bull ban.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court has allowed the claim of a child who was bitten by a dog to proceed to trial against the landlords, even though the landlords did not own the dog.  The ruling reverses a lower court ruling in favor of the landlord.

The plaintiff was ten years old when he was attacked by a pit bull named Tiny. Tiny belonged to another tenant in the same 4-family building. Tiny had been found in the woods and adopted by the family. Tiny had demonstrated some aggressive behavior prior to the date of the incident.  The plaintiff's family maintained that they had lodged multiple complaints with the landlords about not just the presence of the dog, but also its aggressive behavior. The landlords were also informed that Tiny was allowed to roam unrestrained, a violation of the Waltham leash law. The landlords claimed they had no knowledge that the dog might be dangerous.

The landlords had a no-dog policy for the premises, but failed to enforce that policy with regard to Tiny.  In fact, the plaintiff's family had previously given up its dogs because of the landlords' policy.

On the date of the incident, Tiny was sitting on a porch, unrestrained, then ran across the yard, jumped a fence, and bit the plaintiff who was playing in the neighbor's yard. The ten-year old had mulitiple dog bite injuries to his leg.

The Superior Court judge ruled that the landlords were not negligent, and that the fears of the pit bull were "subjective."  The Appeals Court disagreed.

In Massachusetts, a third party such as a landlord, is not liable under the Massachusetts strict liability statute governing dogs. While a dogs owner or keeper is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog, a third party can be liable only if he or she is negligent. A landlord does not insure that the property will be safe, and has a duty to use reasonable care for the premises.  Thus, in this case, the plaintiff is required to prove that the landlord knew or should have known of the dangers of the dog.  The landlords could not be held liable just on the fact that the dog was of a dangerous breed, but could be held liable if they had knowledge of its dangerous behavior.

The Appeals Court also noted that negligence cases are ordinarily best left to a jury's consideration, since the cases often turn on disputed facts. Given the disputed facts in this case, namely whether the landlord had received reports of the dog's dangerous behavior, the case was sent back to the Superior Court for trial.

The name of the case is Nutt v. Florio, Appeals Court No. 08-P-81 (October 19, 2009).  

Continue reading "Massachusetts Appeals Court Allows Dog Bite Case Against Landlord to Proceed" »