Fort Worth Injury Lawyer Blog

Dog bites are relatively rare personal injury cases. However, when they happen, the damages are usually pretty bad. Not long ago, I wrote about the law regarding dog bite cases, and yesterday, the two came together, literally, when a judicial candidate who was out campaigning was attacked by a pit bull.

Former Dallas Democratic Party head, Ken Molberg, was walking door-to-door Monday on a sidewalk when a pit bull came running up and attacked his leg. The dog bit him near his groin on his upper leg and Molberg sustained 11 puncture wounds, causing him to have 17 stitches.

The dog hadn’t had his rabies shots either. Part of the law surrounding dog bites requires owners of dogs designated as “dangerous” to stay current on vaccinations, including the rabies vaccination. That dog chose the wrong person to attack.

Molberg didn’t give up, though. He will continue campaigning through today by phone and email. He is running for Judge of the 95th Civil District Court. Click here for a link to his Web site, which has a nice video clip explaining his philosophy and credentials.

For information on injury cases or dog bite claims, feel free to call me at 817-294-1900, or Contact Me Online.

**Photo courtesy of kenmolberg.com

Posted by Mark A. Anderson | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Dog Attacks , News to Use , Personal Injuries

Bookmark:

A new Texas dog bite law was put to good use recently when the owners of four dangerous killer dogs were sentenced to seven years in prison. Back in May, their four pit bulls were found surrounding the dead body of a 7-year-old boy in a ditch near the couple’s house. Two of the dogs were killed by police at the scene; the other two were taken away by animal control at the reluctance of the owners.

The new Texas law states that unsecured dogs that attack are the responsibility of their owners, holding the owners liable if the dogs injure or kill a person.

In this case, a Texas jury found the couple guilty of the second-degree felony (a dog attack resulting in a death), which means a maximum of 20 years in jail. Since this sentence was for less than 10 years, the two were each up for $150,000 bail, but neither has posted it yet.

About two weeks ago, a Rotweiller attack in Fort Worth prompted me to examine the law surrounding dangerous dogs. Under the new (and much stronger) dog laws, owners of “dangerous dogs” are required to carry liability insurance for their dogs, keep rabies and other vaccines current, make sure their dogs are secure at all times and pay an annual fee for keeping a dog designated as “dangerous.”

I applaud our state legislature for strengthening these dog laws. The change came at the urging of the family of an elderly lady who was killed in a dog attack as she was gardening over the Thanksgiving holiday back in 2005. The new law has been referenced to as “Lillian’s Law” after this lady.

I represent people who have suffered personal injuries as a result of a dog bite or attack. Should you have any questions about a dog attack, please give me a call at 817-294-1900.
Dog attacks are always preventable, which is what makes the resulting deaths so tragic. So if you’re going to own an aggressive-by-nature dog, please, do everyone else around you a favor and keep it secure.

Posted by Mark A. Anderson | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Dog Attacks , News to Use , Personal Injuries , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

A 78-year-old Fort Worth, Texas man was attacked by three Rottweilers in his front yard last weekend after they escaped through the fence of their nearby backyard. The man was luckily able to scare the dogs off with a stick after running into his garage, but he didn’t escape personal injury.

The man suffered dog bites to his hands and wrist and bled all over the driveway. He said he was lucky because it could have been a lot worse.

There has been some recent strengthening of the criminal laws regarding dangerous dogs. First, the dog (or dogs, in this case) must be designated as “dangerous dogs” by the local municpatity. This finding also mandates that the owner of the “dangerous dog” register the dog with the local animal control authority and provide proof of liability by: (1) carrying at least $100,000 of liability insurance to cover any injuries suffered by a dog attack; (2) have current rabies vaccine of the dog; and (3) have a secure enclosure in which the dog is kept. The owner must also pay an annual fee for keeping a dangerous dog.

If a dangerously-designated dog makes an unprovoked attack causing bodily injury on another person outside of the pet’s secured enclosure, then the dog owner can be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor (Texas Health and Safety Code § 822.44). Also, if a person is found guilty under this law, then the court may order the dangerous dog to be destroyed.

I handle dog bite cases and I know that vicious dogs are something to take very seriously—especially Rottweillers, which are known to be an aggressive breed. And three of them all attacking at once?? It’s very fortunate that this man’s dog bites weren’t any worse.
In the present case, I have no idea if Fort Worth had already designated these particular dogs as dangerous. But that designation does not address whether the owner can be held civilly liable for the damages. That is a completely different standard.

If you have questions regarding civil liability on a dog attack, please call Fort Worth, Texas Personal Injury Attorney Mark Anderson at 817-294-1900, or feel free to Contact Me Online.

Posted by Mark A. Anderson | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Dog Attacks , News to Use , Personal Injuries

Bookmark:

A quirk in the law has allowed a dog bite to go unpunished. Earlier this month, a five-year-old Denton County boy was attacked by a pit bull after the dog dug under a neighboring fence. The child’s mom rushed him to the hospital where his significant wounds were treated. The doctor advised that if the dog had some sort of disease, that the stitching could make things worse as the disease would be trapped in him. The mom decided against stitching, which makes complete sense.

The dog was properly quarantined for 10 days, but because there were no stitches, he was released to his owner with no further repercussions. Last night, KXAS reported that if the child would have had stitches, then the dog would have possibly been put down after a hearing by a judge.

Who would have thought that the mother’s decision to not let her son have stitches would let the dog off? Why do stitches make a difference? Since the dog’s fate would not be decided until a hearing is held, then the fact of stitching should make no difference. I am not saying this dog needs to be put down, but that should certainly be considered--stitches or not. Here we have an innocent five-year-old playing in his own backyard. I would assume that he will be absolutely petrified to go back there and play again. It's like her son is being punished and not the dog! Sounds like a quick in the law which needs to be fixed.

Posted by Mark A. Anderson | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Dog Attacks

Bookmark: