Oregon law does not follow the legal doctrine of "assumption of the risk." Instead, negligence on an injured person's part is compared to negligence on the part of the person causing injury. This means that a dog park visitor does not waive his or her right to sue another visitor who is negligent simply because they are both at the dog park. As my colleague has noted, the question is whether strict liability applies under Oregon law. This is the legal standard applicable to a dog owner who...
11 lawyers agreed with this answer
Washington state courts have allowed recovery for the actual or intrinsic value of companion animals. In one 2005 wrongful death case, a Seattle woman whose cat was mauled to death by a neighbor's dog was awarded more than $45,000 in a lawsuit against the dog's owner. The situation described in your question should be considered an extremely serious matter. I recommend immediately consulting an animal law attorney licensed in your jurisdiction, as well as leashing your dog whenever it leaves...
7 lawyers agreed with this answer
Proof of dog ownership generally does not depend on formal documents. A person claiming to own a dog may have a number of papers that seem to establish ownership, but these only indicate ownership. The law looks to current actions and activity regarding the dog to determine a person's status as its owner. Unmarried couples who acquire companion animals together but don't go to the trouble of using a pet custody agreement often run into the exact problem described in the question. One way to...
6 lawyers agreed with this answer
1 person marked this answer as helpful
A person to whom a dog nuisance citation is issued is entitled to a hearing. At the hearing, the county has the burden of proving the citation's validity by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance means more likely than not. Contesting a dog citation therefore requires showing admissible evidence that the accused dog was less likely the source of the nuisance. Examples might include testimony by witnesses who saw or heard the dog somewhere else when the alleged violation occurred or know...
3 lawyers agreed with this answer
I agree generally with my colleagues. Oregon law provides for a two-year statute of limitations and five-year statute of ultimate repose in medical negligence cases. This means that an action must be commenced no later than five years of the date of the treatment, omission, or operation on which the action is based, regardless of when the harm is discovered. Monitoring your child closely for developing injuries while keeping these strict time limits in mind may be the only real option if harm...
Selected as best answer
Unfortunately, the workers' compensation system is the only remedy available against an employer for an employee's work injury. But an employee hurt by defective equipment or machinery may also have independent claims against the manufacturer. Because such claims are subject to strict time limits, it may be important to consult both a product liability attorney and a workers' comp lawyer.
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
1 person marked this answer as helpful
This question is more complex than it may appear. The fact that any injury was not to a person, that the yellow lab was a foster dog (and therefore presumably without an "owner" when the injury occurred), and that the bulldog fought with the lab all complicate the answer of who will be responsible. I recommend contacting a local attorney directly, especially if you receive a demand for payment. The Alabama State Bar lawyer referral service can assist you with finding an attorney licensed in...
3 lawyers agreed with this answer
The state will not assume responsibility for paying restitution on a convicted person's behalf. Under Oregon law, if restitution has not been paid after a judgment ordering payment, the victim may collect "by any means authorized by law for the enforcement of a judgment." You may also want to inform the assistant D.A. who prosecuted the case and ask that he or she seek sanctions for contempt of court against the nonpaying person. This answer is provided for informational purposes only. It is...
1 lawyer agreed with this answer
I always recommend consulting an attorney after any injury caused by others, including a dog bite. Under Oregon law, a homeowner may be liable for injuries off the premises caused by a dog. Proving liability may be more complicated based on the facts in the question, however, and a lawyer should certainly be consulted. Avvo guidelines say that attorneys should not solicit business directly when answering questions. If you believe that a lawyer's answer is helpful, check his or her profile...
1 person marked this answer as helpful
There is risk in most medical procedures. The fact that a bad outcome occurred does not necessarily mean that there was medical negligence. A successful medical negligence claim requires proof that the healthcare provider failed to provide a level of care that a reasonable provider would under the circumstances. Even if the care that he or she provided fell below the reasonable standard, the harm that it caused usually has to be fairly severe. If another doctor has indicated that permanent...
1 person marked this answer as helpful