Frequently Asked Questions

If you have a personal injury claim, the amounts/kinds of damages you can receive depends on the type of injury you have suffered, the seriousness of the injury, what your losses have been (financially, physically or emotionally) and what jurisdiction you live in. The court may also consider additional factors based on your situation. Generally, there are two types of damages you may receive for a personal injury claim, compensatory or punitive.

Compensatory damages are the most common and are available to compensate the victim for losses they may have suffered. The losses are not limited to physical injuries, although physical injuries may be included in compensatory damages. Other losses may include medical costs, loss of earnings (past and future), loss of the ability to work, loss of household services, emotional distress suffered by the injured party, loss of quality of life and other damages specific to the victim. Persons other than the injured party may also bring claims for compensatory damages. Others may bring claims on the victim’s behalf, such as family members, a domestic partner or a husband or wife. This may often be the situation in cases where the injured party is deceased, however the claimant (person bringing the claim) may bring a personal injury action on his or her loved one’s behalf even if they are still living.

Additionally, punitive damages may be available in some cases for additional damages the victim may have suffered. Punitive damages are not available in all jurisdictions and are determined by the fact finder in the case, the judge or jury. These types of damages do not have to be granted in a personal injury case, but are an extra type of damages intended to punish the defendant (person or persons responsible for the victim’s injuries) for their negligence or wrongdoing. The facts of the case, state law, jurisdiction and the fact finder determine whether punitive damages are warranted in a specific case. Therefore, it is important to know the law in your state and court’s treatment of punitive damages when considering your litigation expectations.

Usually the claimant is the victim who suffered the injury in a personal injury case. However, this is not always the case. Other persons may also file a personal injury action. First, another individual may bring an action on behalf of the injured party. This may be in cases where the victim may not bring the claim him or herself. This could be in situations where the injured person is incapable or does not have the capacity to bring a lawsuit, such as a child or an adult who does not have legal capacity or in cases where the injured party has died as a result of his or her injuries. If the victim is deceased, that person’s family/spouse/partner may also have a claim for wrongful death. Furthermore, if the victim dies after the personal injury claim has been filed; the decedent’s estate representative may carry on the claim in his or her place.

Alternatively, loved ones may have their own legal actions stemming from the victim’s injury. The claims will differ depending on the situation. However, some examples of claims may include loss of household income/assistance or loss of companionship.

In general, the answer to this question is yes. An owner of a dog, or any animal for that matter, may be held liable for injuries the animal inflicts on others. However, the ease with which a plaintiff can win a "dog-bite" lawsuit differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on the legal theory of recovery available in the plaintiff's location. Some jurisdictions require the plaintiff to show that the animal owner knew, or should have known, that the animal was inclined to attack or bite. In other jurisdictions, the plaintiff may only need to show negligence on the part of the owner in order to recover money for his injuries. If a wild animal, such as a lion, bear or monkey, injures the plaintiff, the animal's owner may be held accountable under a theory of strict liability for plaintiff's injuries regardless of the plaintiff's conduct.

Some states have "dog-bite" statutes designed to address these matters. Additionally, some municipalities may also have their own statutes which address the responsibility of pet owners to answer for the actions of their pets.

If the plaintiff is an adult, the owner of an animal may offer as a defense to the plaintiff's claim that the injured party provoked the animal. Where the plaintiff has been given clear warning that an animal should not be approached, petted or talked to, and still proceeds with that action, the owner may be able to avoid responsibility if the animal thereafter attacks the plaintiff. This defense is not available, however, if the plaintiff is a child.

Once the plaintiff has established that the animal owner is liable for his injuries, the plaintiff must also establish the amount of his or her damages. The plaintiff should introduce evidence of how much it has cost to treat the injury, such as doctor and hospital bills. In addition, the plaintiff may be able to recover lost wages if the injury kept the plaintiff out of work. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for any permanent disability caused by the injury, as well as compensation for pain and suffering.

An owner of property has a duty to protect members of the public from injury that may occur upon the property. The injured person may be able to recover money for those injuries if he or she can prove that the property owner failed to meet that duty. The hurdle plaintiffs’ face is that the nature and extent of the property owner's duty will vary depending upon the facts of the situation and the jurisdiction in question.

Some states focus on the status of the injured visitor to the property. These states divide the potential status into three separate categories: invitee, licensee and trespasser. An invitee is someone who has been invited onto the land because that person will confer some advantage to the property owner, such as a store patron. An owner of property is required to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the invitee. A licensee is someone who enters upon the land for his or her own purpose, and is present at the consent, but not the invitation, of the owner.. The owner's duty to a licensee is only to warn of hidden dangers. Finally, a trespasser is an individual who enters onto the property without the knowledge or consent of the owner and who remains there without any right or permission. Trespassers have difficulty suing property owners because property owners' duty towards trespassers is not to place traps and hazards on their property. In some cases, the owner must also warn trespassers of the hazards if they are unlikely to be discovered by the trespasser and could cause serious injury or death.

Other states focus upon the condition of the property and the activities of both the visitor and owner, rather than considering only the status of the visitor. In these states, a uniform standard that requires the owner of the property to exercise reasonable care to ensure the safety of invitees and licensees is generally applied. The plaintiff must prove that the duty of care has not been met, through an examination of the circumstances surrounding the entry on the property, the use to which the property is put, the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injury, and the reasonableness of placing a warning or repairing the condition. Obviously, whether reasonable care has been rendered depends greatly upon the particular circumstances.

The property owner's duty of care toward children is greater than the duty owed to adults. Even if the children are trespassers or engage in dangerous behavior, the property owner must still take precautions to prevent foreseeable harm to children. The classic example of a property owner's greater duty of care to children arises in the context of backyard swimming pools. Owners must fence, gate, and lock their pools in a manner that keeps children out and if they fail to do so, they will be found liable for injuries to children, even if the children were trespassers that were warned to stay off the property.