Comparative Negligence in McKinney Dog Bite Cases

Texas is a modified comparative negligence state. Comparative negligence seeks to compensate the injured party for at least part of the injuries. For example, if the total recovery for the injured person is $100,000 and the jury found the plaintiff to be 10 percent at fault, then they would be awarded $90,000 in compensation. However, if the plaintiff is found to be 51 percent or more at fault for the accident, then they cannot recover damages. This rule allows courts to hold each party accountable for their percentage of fault. If you have been injured in a dog bite incident, reach out to a seasoned lawyer who is knowledgeable about comparative negligence in McKinney dog bite cases.

Comparative Negligence Impact on Case

Comparative negligence in McKinney dog bite cases can significantly affect compensation. For instance, if a person is beating a dog without any justification and the dog attacks as a response, then the individual would be barred from recovery. This is because the person provoked the dog attack. When someone provokes a dog and the dog bites back, then the individual is most likely going to be found to be more than 51 percent responsible for the accident. However, if the person was simply walking down the street and then the dog attacked without warning, then the individual will not have any comparative negligence assigned to them. Therefore, they would be able to recover damages accordingly.

Proving Liability in a Dog Bite Case

There are multiple ways of proving liability in a dog bite case. Two of the more common methods are strict liability and negligence. If the owner of the dog knows that it has shown dangerous qualities and the dog then attacks someone, the injured can pursue a claim of strict liability. Under strict liability, the owner of the dog would be liable even if the injury to the victim was not foreseen. Strict liability can be established if the injured party can prove:

  • Defendant owned or possessed the animal
  • The animal had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class
  • Defendant knew or had reason to know that the animal had dangerous propensities
  • The dangerous propensities were the producing cause of injury

An injured person may also recover damages if they can establish negligence. To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove:

  • Defendant owned or possessed the animal
  • The defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the animal from injuring someone
  • The defendant breached their duty
  • The defendant’s breach of the duty caused the plaintiff’s injury

An accomplished personal injury attorney could assist an injured person with proving liability in a dog bite case.

How a Dog Bite Attorney in McKinney Could Help

An experienced lawyer could help a person when their case is at risk of being hurt by comparative negligence in McKinney dog bite cases by establishing a clear chain of liability on the opposing party. They will highlight the history of the dog, what the dog owner could have done to avoid the attack, what the dog owner knew prior to the attack, and all the different ways it could have been avoided. Victim-blaming is a strategy used by the defense, but a personal injury attorney will deal with it by highlighting the bad acts of the opposing party.

Free Consultation