A dog-lover might have no desire to sue the owner of a canine that had nipped at the same dog-lover’s hand. Still, not all dogs attack those that love canines.

How could victim of dog’s bite be partly responsible for that particular incident?

Victim had been trespassing: The definition for trespassing covers a range of actions; it includes that of reaching over a fence, in order to pet someone’s four-legged friend. Yet victim had provoked the canine’s actions.

Outcome for lawsuit that had been initiated by the partly responsible victim would depend on specifics in the state’s rules.

Did the state adhere to the traditional comparative negligence principle? According to that principle, the degree of the victim’s contribution to creation of the incident should determine that amount of money that ought to be deducted from the awarded compensation, or any reward granted by the court.

Did the state adhere to the modified comparative negligence principle? That is similar to the traditional principle, unless the victim has created more than 50% of the cause for occurrence of the biting. In that case, the victim would not receive any compensation, or any court-awarded judgment.

Did the sate adhere to the contributory negligence principle? Unlike the other principles, it does not allow for payment of a single cent to anyone that has caused a dog to make him or her the victim of a biting attack. That rule applies to any dog bite victim, regardless of how minor the same victim’s alleged provocation might have been.

Could the above principles apply to a settlement, or only to cases where a judge or jury has announced a decision?

A judge and jury would certainly have to take the state’s existing approach to shared fault into consideration, if a defendant had offered proof that the victim had helped to cause the pet dog’s vicious behavior. Still, that does not mean that neither the comparative nor contributory principle could ever affect a settlement.

Personal Injury Lawyer in Ottawa recommends that you remember that during pre-settlement negotiations, each side must respect the other side’s view. As a result, the defendant would have the right to introduce facts that concerned the victim’s actions, before the biting attack. The introduction of such facts could cause the opposing side to reduce the level of its demand.

A reduced demand would lead to a lower counteroffer. A lower counteroffer would make it possible for the 2 sides to agree more quickly upon a lower figure. Consequently, whatever principle the state had chosen to follow would affect the outcome for any pre-settlement negotiations. By affecting that outcome, the state’s chosen principle would affect the size of the compensation package that should get delivered to the target of the canine’s teeth.