Portland Personal Injury Law Blog

While Pit Bulls get the vast majority of bad press when it comes to dog attacks, there are many breeds that can snap at an innocent bystander. You have to use caution around any dog that is within reach. Besides the threat of physical harm, if you are attacked by a dog it can leave emotional scars as well. Both physical and emotional injuries can come into play in a court of law.

Dog bite laws vary from state to state. In Oregon and Washington, pet owners are responsible if their animal attacks you. If you are attacked and hurt by someone’s dog, here are a few things you should consider (in order):

1. Keep Your Cool - If you are an emotional person, try to stay cool if you confront the animal’s owner. Little good can come from a verbal confrontation.

2. Call the Police - If you have been injured, you want to have record of it. When the police arrive on the scene they will most likely file a report, which can be vital evidence if you have to take the pet owner to court.

3. Call Your Doctor - Nothing is more important than your health. If you have been bitten by a dog or any other animal, you don’t know if they have had their shots or if the wound is bad enough that you could get an infection. Contact your physician as soon as possible.

4. Consult an Attorney - If you have more than a harmless scratch, you may want to consult a personal injury attorney. They can bring their experience and expertise to the table. This may include negotiating a settlement with an insurance company. And it if must go to court, your attorney will ensure that the evidence has been properly handled and your side of the story is represented in court.

Have you or a loved one been injured and you feel it was someone else’s fault? Do you have property that has been damaged or destroyed due to the actions of someone else? While it may seem perfectly logical that if someone has hurt you or damaged your property, they should be held accountable for their actions, there are certain exceptions that may apply to your case.

These so-called exceptions often fall under the “assumption of risk” doctrine in law. Simply put, if you have knowingly taken on a risk and have done so voluntarily, you cannot sue a person for negligence if you are injured or your property is damaged.

The simplest example of this is if there is a warning sign clearly posted that you should not be on the property or warning you of a potential danger, and you ignore the sign and get hurt anyway. In this case, you have assumed the risk inherent in the situation, and will have a difficult time proving negligence.

You also assume some risk if you are involved in a sport that may pose inherent risks, such as football or hockey. But that risk assumption doesn’t apply to every type of injury in a sport. For instance, if an opponent came up to you during a game and physically confronted you in a way not a part of the sport, such as punching you, the assumption of risk does not apply.

In 2005, baseball fan Gerard Elie was attending a minor league baseball game at Keyspan Park in Brooklyn, New York. During warm ups, a player’s bat flew out of his hands, into the stands, striking Elie in the nose. He sued and lost his case against the city. The judge states that Mr. Elie assumed the risk of certain dangers that come with baseball games, including the possibility of being struck by a flying bat.

The state of Oregon now uses a system of comparative fault. This allows for some flexibility in who is at fault, in that both parties can share a percentage of the liability, as compared to the all-or-nothing guilt or innocence in “traditional” assumption of risk.

Under "modified comparative negligence," a plaintiff can be found up to 50 percent of fault in any given case and still recover damages. But if they are held responsible for 51 percent of the damages or higher, they recover nothing.