Uncategorized

In the Superior Court case of Kizer v. O’Neal, Judge Thomas Corradino recently held that engaging in conduct which is naturally likely to irritate and provoke a dog is sufficient to preclude recovery under the Dog Bite Statute. Therefore, a child too young to realize that rough housing could provoke a dog into biting may be barred from recovery under the Dog Bite Statute, even though the child was engaging in innocent play. Every case is different, so you should consult an experienced attorney in this area if you have questions about your particular situation.

A Connecticut Superior Court judge recently held that the Connecticut Dog Bite Statute and its strict liability provisions apply only to injuries caused by some active conduct by the dog. In the case of Moulton v. Coffee & More, LLC, et al., Judge Jerry Wagner ruled that a case involving a plaintiff who tripped over a dog who was lying next to the entrance of a store did not give rise to liability under the strict liability provisions of the Dog Bite Statute. Judge Wagner ruled that there would need to be some affirmative act on behalf of the dog for the statute to apply. This case demonstrates that every factual situation is different and every case must be analyzed closely by an experienced Dog Bite Lawyer to determine if there is a viable claim for monetary damages under the circumstances.

In the recent Connecticut Appellate Court case of Giacalone v. Housing Authority of the Town of Wallingford, the court held that a plaintiff could file a common law negligence claim for monetary damages against a landlord who had prior notice of the dangerous propensities of a dog without proving that the landlord was the owner or keeper of the dog.  This important case will allow many more victims of dog attacks to recover compensation for their injuries and damages.  It will also assist in holding more people accountable for their negligence in connection with dog attacks.

A man taking out his garbage Monday morning on Melrose Street was attacked by his neighbor’s pit bull terrier, police said. The man then pulled out a handgun and shot the dog dead.

Police responded to the call about 6:45 a.m., after the shooting.

Sgt. Christene Mertes said the person attacked by the dog had a valid pistol permit and a properly licensed handgun, and he was not charged.

Police located the dog owner, who told them he’d let the dog out of the house to relieve itself when it took off across the street.

The victim reported minor wounds from the dog.

Hartford Police: Dog Attacks Man, Man Shoots Dog – Courant.com.

A two year old boy was recently severely attacked and killed by three pit bull terrier dogs in Concord, California. The attack occurred when the boy went into the garage of a family home to play. He was attacked by three of the five pit bull terrier dogs living in the home. The boy’s step-grandfather has been arrested in connection with the incident.

TORRINGTON – The owner of a pit bull that attacked a mail carrier on her daily route Thursday afternoon has been cited by police.

Arman Corpaci, 47, of 90 Clearview Ave., was cited for having an unlicensed dog and an nuisance dog.

The dog, a female pit bull named “Naja,” has been placed on a 14-day quarantine.

The mail carrier, 53-year-old Teri Hall, told police she was delivering mail to 90 Clearview Ave. around 12:30 p.m. The dog managed to open a screen door and came out onto the front porch, police said.

In the recent Connecticut Superior Court case of Falconi v. Spicer, Judge Emmet Cosgrove held that an amended complaint adding a claim of negligence to an original complaint asserting only a claim of strict liability under the Dog Bite Statute, CGS Sec. 22-357, does not relate back to the filing of the original complaint for purposes of determining whether the statute of limitations for the negligence claim has expired.