Case Brief Pulley V Malek

On 05/08/16 at 2:47pm, I was dispatched to 5064 Blue Meadow Court, on an injury-possible dangerous or vicious dog, owner known, animal confined. I arrived at the house and spoke to victim Xavier Holston-Sims. Mr. Holston-Sims stated that he was riding his bike from the corner store on Cleveland Ave, when a dog came out and bite him on his left leg. I took a victim statement from Mr. Holston-Sims stating those facts. I then want to 4975 Cleveland Ave and spoke to dog owner Lisha Entingh. Ms. Entingh stated that she was not outside when the incident happen, but that her friend was walking the dog on a leash in her yard when the dog pulled away and bite the victim. Ms. Entingh house is adjutant to a corner store and her side fence door was

The court in Morris found that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were the direct and immediate result of the dogs’ actions, and although no physical contact occurred, the dog’s actions caused the plaintiff to dismount his bicycle quickly, in order to avoid an imminent attack, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Similarly, our client never made physical contact with the dogs, sustaining her injuries when she was thrown from the sled, making direct contact with a tree. Although no physical contact occurred, the phrase “attacks or injures” insinuates actions by a dog that directly and proximately produces injury to the individual the dog attacks or injures. Lewellin, 465 N.W.2d at 65. While one might challenge that it would be easier to establish direct causation between ones injuries and a dogs actions through direct contact with the plaintiff, the statute’s language merely establishes an immediate implication by a dogs non-hostile behavior, in order to consider the dogs actions be covered under the language of "or injures. While there was no physical contact between Staycia and the sled dog’s, the dogs quick, veering off the fairly narrow path into the woods, caused Staycia to be thrown through the air, against a tree, invoking a direct and immediate result of the dogs actions of upsetting the sled. These facts invoke the statute’s

On 05/29/16 at 8:00pm, I was dispatched to 2142 Balford Square East on injury-possible dangers or vicious dog and owner surrender. I arrived at the house and spoke to dog owner Delane Murrell Jr. Mr. Murrell stated that his son was standing in the kitchen when their dog came in the house from the back yard and attacked his son. Mr. Murrell wrote out a statement of facts in regards to the incident. Mr. Murrell also stated that he wanted to surrender the dog. I took pictures of the injuries to Qimari Brown. Qimari has puncture wounds to his right thigh and to the right side of back. Mr. Murrell was unable to show proof of dog license. Mr. Murrell was issued violations for failure to license and failure to control a dangerous dog. Mr.

On 05/08/18, at approximately 10:56am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 4514 Starrett Court on a dangerous or vicious dog investigation (dog owner owner's address). I arrived on scene at approximately 11:25am. I met with victim Syed Naque, who stated he was outside his resident when a medium size dog (black) came up from behind him and bit him on his right thigh. Mr. Naque stated the dog continue to come at him in a aggressive manner even after he went inside the house, the dog would charged the side door. A next door neighbor had to get the dog to leave the area. Mr. Naque stated the dog owner did come over to apologize in regards to the incident. I explained Mr. Naque

On 09/11/16 at 5:57pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 841 Crevis Lane on a possible nuisance dog; dog still at large, threat to safety. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant John Haywood. Mr. Haywood stated that he was going to his vehicle to put his daughter car set in when the neighbor’s dog came from behind him and started growling and barking at him. Mr. Haywood ran into the garage to get away. He contacted Franklin County Animal Care and Control due to the dog being previously designated dangerous. Mr. Haywood recorded the dog loose near his vehicle. I advised Mr. Haywood if he know if the dog was still loose, Mr. Haywood was unsure. I advised him I will need to check with the dog owners to make sure the dog has return home and I will return to talk to him.

Roper v Simmons, Case Number 03-633 (ROPER V. SIMMONS (03-633), 2017), brought before the court October 13, 2004 to March 1, 2005, Roper who was the Superintendent at Potosi Correction Center and Christopher Simmons who is the juvenile offender at the time. Brief Summary of the crime, Christopher Simmons, who was junior in high school at the time of the crime, had told two of his friends that he wanted to kill someone. He planned out the crime, by doing a home invasion. He told his friends that they could break in like a burglary, tie their victim up and through the victim over the nearby bridge. He also, stated to his friends since we are minors we will get away with the crime. Simmons knew the person of interest because he was involved with

On 11/22/16, at 4:02pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to the 600 block of Bedford Ave on dog at large patrol only. I arrived in the area and saw two dogs, one a small mix breed black and white and a tan and white pit bull, in the front of 681 Bedford Ave. I exited my vehicle and slowly approached the house. I knocked on the dog. Dog owner Robin Holmes-Muhammad answered the door. I asked if the two dogs on her porch belong to her, she stated that they did. I advised Ms. Holmes-Muhammad that we received a complaint that the dogs were running loose. Ms. Holmes-Muhammad apologized and took both dogs inside the house. Ms. Holmes-Muhammad stated that the tan/white pit bull does not really belong to her it was on her front porch

On 10/21/2017, Deputy Warden W. Jones with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) investigated an injury-possible dangerous or vicious dog incident involving victim Linda Courson. Ms. Courson was walking her dog near 491 Townsend Ave when two Pit Bulls (Tan) came charging out of the above stated address and attack her dog. Ms. Courson sustained injuries during the incident from the two pit bulls knocking her over. Deputy Warden W. Jones collected a statement of facts from Ms. Couson. Deputy Warden W. Jones went to the above stated address and knocked on the door. He received no answer and left a door notice. Deputy Warden W. Jones requested a follow-up to the above stated address to talk to the dog owner and cite and designate

6. Holding: As stated in the case: “one who, without a privilege to do so, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, with bodily harm resulting from such distress, is subject to liability for such emotional distress and bodily harm even though he has committed no heretofore recognized common law tort.”

When a dog that has bitten someone before is set loose again due to the carelessness of his owner, we don’t just hold the dog accountable. We blame the owner. From a legal standpoint, it wasn’t the madness of the dog that caused the damages; it was the owner’s negligence. In the case of Joshua Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia, Six Flags was the owner and their gang affiliated employees were the mad dogs. On July 3, 2007, Six Flags’ security allowed these employees, along with a plethora of other gang members, back into the amusement park after terrorizing an innocent family,which eventually led to the attack on Martin along with his brother and cousin. Because of Six Flags’ negligent actions and lack of immediate response to this life threatening situation, Martin sustained permanent brain damage leaving him in a coma for more than a week.

App. LEXIS 955, at *10 (citing 4 Am. Jur. 2d Animals § 69 (2015)). If the owner is not aware and does not have any reason to know that his dog has any dangerous propensities, then the owner will likely not be liable for the first mischief that occurs. Hood v. Waldrum, 434 S.W.2d 94, 99 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1968). For example, in Moore v. Gaut, James Moore, the complainant had to prove that Michael Gaut, the owner of the dog involved, knew or should have known that his dog had dangerous propensities, making him liable for the dog bite injury. The evidence provided to the court never showed any record that the dog had ever engaged in behavior that could have been viewed as dangerous behavior. Moore, 2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 955, at *5. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Gaut negated the third element for dog bite liability when he testified that “his dog never bit or attacked anyone before Plaintiff.” Id. at *13. Gaut genuinely believed his dog was “friendly, gentle, and jovial before the bite occurred.” Id. at *14. Since Gaut was unaware of any dangerous propensities, he was found not liable for the dog bite to Moore. Id. at *15.

The dog’s owner was letting the dog roam around in the yard. The then dog came strutting through a hole in the fence, and he took her down with bite marks and scratches. Another example is, my mother has a friend whose daughter was attacked in the face by their Shih Tzu dog. The little

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

Six months ago, almost to the day, my best friend and her new puppy were attacked. She was dog sitting her grandmother’s Mastiff, whom at the time had no previous violent history. She kept the Mastiff and her puppy in separate rooms in order to make sure there were no problems, but that wasn’t enough. One day, out of nowhere, the Mastiff broke down the door separating them and went on a full-fledged attack toward the puppy. My friend tried to make it out of the door of the house, but to no avail. The Mastiff bit her by the arm and dragged her to the ground forcing the puppy

Animal abuse is a quiet epidemic that is spreading throughout the world. The amount of animal abuse is growing and we must do something to stop it. Animal abuse is not putting a choke collar on a dog to keep it from biting an individual; it is not killing an animal for food. Animal abuse is the knowing or intentional "(1) tortures or serious overworks [of] an animal"; the "(2) failing unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in his custody; kills, injures, or administers poison to an animal; [or] (6) causes one animal to fight with another" (Title 3). The majority of states in the U.S. classify abusive treatment toward animals as a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is punished by a fine of