A dog owner puts a fence around a pet canine’s doghouse and run. The same owner does not learn about the dog’s ability to hop onto the dog-house and to jump over the fence.
Soon after the pet’s discovery of the way to jump over the fence, two boys decide to approach the same fence. They have seen the warning sign about the dog, and are eager to discover the size of the dangerous animal. The pet canine hears them coming, and jumps over the fence. The same pet follows up on that action by biting one of the two lads.
The parents of the boy that had become a target of the dog’s teeth tried to seek compensation for the dog’s owner. The judge at the ensuing trial ruled that it was a case of shared blame.
How was the money shared between the owner and the one boy’s family?
If the state where the boys and the canine lived followed the principle of pure comparative negligence, then a judge would have to decide on the degree to which each of the parties was to blame for the biting incident. If they were equally at fault, then the canine’s owner would have to pay 50% of the compensation. The boy’s parents would get compensated for payment of just 50% of the damages/injuries.
If the same state followed the principle of modified comparative negligence, the amount of money paid to each party would be the same. No party had been responsible for more than 50% of the damages.
If the same state had chosen to follow the principle of contributory negligence, then the judge might study the state’s rules, with respect to the owner’s responsibilities. If the accident had taken place in state with strict liability, a study of legal history might indicate how the judge should rule. Unfortunately, the decisions reached by the courts in those states with strict liability have not been consistent.
All of that information points out the need for an experience injury attorney in Trenton, no matter what side you might be on in a dog bite case. The strength of the evidence could work to reinforce or challenge the position of a personal injury lawyer in Trenton. The lawyer’s position would be strengthened, if the evidence managed to prove the existence, on the owner’s part, for all the elements of negligence. But if the judge were to view the boys as intruders, the owner of the canine could not be held responsible for the same canine’s actions. Those twin possibilities showcase the peculiarities of shared blame, in a situation where one party has made a personal injury claim against the owner of a pet canine.