In 2002, a couple of Rottweilers attacked and seriously injured Marguene St. Juste, a woman in Delray Beach, Florida. Last week, the jury awarded this woman $3.76 million for her injuries. Routine — if expensive — dog bite case, right? The patented Overlawyered twist? The jury decided that the owner of the Rottweilers, who had allegedly repeatedly allowed the dogs to run free, was only 40% responsible for this tragedy. The other 60% of the blame — no, not the dogs, or the victim, or the doctors who treated her, or anybody obvious like that. Rather, the majority of the responsibility was assigned to the city of Delray Beach, Florida.
(The allocation of fault might call into question the value of defense attorneys; the dogs’ owner didn’t even bother to defend herself, and defaulted in the case, while the city defended itself vigorously. And yet the city bore the brunt of the verdict. Of course, a plausible alternate explanation is that the plaintiff simply picked on the deepest pocket, and the jury went along out of sympathy.)
The city was blamed based on the theory that the city knew that the dogs were running loose — the city disputed this, arguing that they never actually witnessed the dogs unsecured — and failed to impound them, as its city ordinance required. But even if the allegations against the city are true, how can it make the city more liable than the owner?
More importantly, why should it make the city liable at all? It doesn’t in other contexts; you can’t sue the police for failing to arrest a dangerous criminal, for instance. (It’s well-established that the police do not have a legal duty to protect you, absent special circumstances.) Once again, we see trial lawyers perversely arguing that an inconsistently-followed safety rule should make a defendant more liable than not having a safety rule at all. If Delray Beach had no animal control ordinance, it could not have been sued under these circumstances. But because it had one, taxpayers rare on the hook for up to $2.2 million. Now, we don’t expect trial lawyers to care about the incentives that their lawsuits create; after all, they’re just in this game for the money. But shouldn’t our legal system factor in these public policy considerations?
(I should note that there is one circumstance in which it is logical to punish a defendant for not following its safety rules: when an injured party took an extra risk in reliance upon the safety policy, and then the defendant failed to follow that policy. But that’s not the situation presented here. The victim wasn’t attacked by the dogs because of the policy.)
7 Comments
I would say this could be used as justification to ban “dangerous” dog breeds, but it would seem that cities could still end up on the hook for “not enforcing” the ban, if someone violated the ban, even without the cities knowledge.
Sorry, This is slightly off the amrk, but it is an issue which has bothered me for a long time. You reference “trial lawyers.” By that you mean plaintiff’s counsel who file lawsuits of questionable merit. But why call them “trial lawyers”? Generally speaking, at least half of all lawyers in any given lawsuit represent the defense. In fact, given the propensity of these plaintiff’s counsel to sue several parties in the hope of hitting a deep pocket, there are typically several defense lawyers to every plaintiff’s lawyer in these cases.
I am a trial lawyer, but I don’t think my use of the term has the same meaning as yours. I generally represent plaintiffs – both business plaintiffs ( in collection cases) and consumers (in consumer fraud cases). But I can’t tell for sure whether I am a “trial lawyer” under your seemingly derogatory definition.
Can’t we come up with a better term which doesn’t denegrate litigators as a whole?
Under Florida sovereign immunity law, however, the City is only liable for $100,000 . . . if it is liable at all. It is highly unlikely that this verdict will withstand an appeal, at least as against the City.
(I’m Board Certified in City, County & Local Gov’t Law by the Florida Bar)
Two questions:
1) Were the dogs put down?
2) Is the owner of the dogs subject to criminal liability?
“The victim wasn’t attacked by the dogs because of the policy”
This obviously faulty logic is so common here. If the city had not had its dog control ordinance, no sane person would walk its streets. People would all stay indoors, moving only between buildings with secure garages. Who would risk being bitten or stepping int a pile of…
Of course, then someone would be going after the city for not trying to prevent global warming what with the extra driving and methane from all the dog …
It’s depressingly clear from the jury’s comments that they had a poor understanding of their role. They seemed to think it was their job to decide “how badly this woman was attacked” and how much money she should get – not where the liability should land. Picture of mangled arm? Give money! That, I fear, is the amoeba-like mental process of too many jurors.
The municipal culpability for “loose dogs” is sometimes pursued on a “negligent maintenance of the premises” idea, which also underlies the cause of action against a landlord for crimes committed on the property. Judges should stop this too-creative attempt to make social pathology into the equivalent of a broken sidewalk.
And another thing: we’re in damnded-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t territory again. Had the city impounded or killed the dogs — another lawsuit.
And another thing: what’s with all the killer dogs running loose these days? Once again, it seems we’re subjecting America’s increasingly Third-World living conditions to First-World legal standards and systems. It’s not a good match. The solution, clearly, is to lower our legal standards and systems to that of the Third World.
How can this case survive an appeal, considering the case where Washington, DC, was held not liable for never responding to multiple phone calls in an apartment building as someone broke in and raped them over several hours? It’s not enough to say there was an ordinance that wasn’t enforced – I’m sure DC has ordinances against break-ins and rape.