Broken bones are not the only injuries that victims of dog attacks face. Regularly, they suffer scars and lacerations that permanently alter the look and feel of their bodies, even after corrective surgery. These cases highlight some of the awards similar plaintiffs were able to recover.
Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC is committed to securing the most favorable recovery for people bitten or attacked by dogs in Illinois. If you or your child has received a scar in a dog attack you may be entitled to substantial compensation. Contact our office for a free consultation to discuss your legal rights.
McGivern vs. Nava; Cook County; $290,000 Settlement
Pit bulls are notoriously aggressive and in this case the dog earned that label. A 12-year-old girl was playing with a friend in the yard when a pit bull entered the premises and attacked her. The dog bit her in several places and caused numerous permanent scars across her body. The plaintiff’s family sued the owner of the dog and alleged all proper requirements of the Illinois Animal Control Act as well as the fact that the owners knew about the dog’s dangerous propensities but failed to warn others about them. The defendant flatly rejected these contentions and retorted that the children provoked the dog by throwing toys at it. This case did not go to trial. Both sides settled out of court for $290,000.
Pifer vs. Loomis; Winnebago County; $17,000 Settlement
In this case, a father brought his 3-year-old boy named Ian to work so that he could show him what he did for a living. Instead, a co-worker’s dog ran up and attacked the child, biting his cheek and nose. The attack left visible scars that would later require surgery and probably could not permanently erase the damage. The parents of the child the dog’s owner pursuant to the Animal Control Act; further, they argued that the defendant kept the dog in public without a leash knowing that the dog had dangerous tendencies. The defendant responded that the dog was provoked and the child had no legal right to be on the premises at the time of the attack. Apparently, both sides thought it was for the benefit of the child to settle rather than go to trial and they agreed on $17,000.
Pitts vs. Manson; Cook County; $300,000 Jury Award
This case boiled down to a he said, she said situation where the resident of an apartment building claimed an owner’s dog attacked him but the owner said the reverse was true. According to the victim’s side of the story, he was exiting the building when a dog owned by the owner of the building suddenly attacked him and scarred his body. The owner of the building said that someone else owned the dog and he merely caged it that day until he could find the proper owner. Also, he claimed the victim actually provoked the dog and the dog’s attack was a defensive measure. The jury believed the victim-turned-plaintiff and awarded him $300,000 for the following items:
- Medical Costs:
- Loss of normal life:
- Pain and Suffering:
Jordyn vs. Diaz; Winnebago County; $1,125,000 Settlement
The dog involved in this attack was named Kong and it certainly lived up to its reputation. One day, it ran out and attacked a 15-year-old boy as he was going home from school with a group of friends. The dog jumped at the child on his bike and pulled him to the ground where it proceeded to viciously bite and otherwise attack the boy. The child was rushed to the hospital where he had to stay for approximately one week to recover from the incident. The attack left him with significant scarring and disfigurement as well as medical bills of more than $150,000. The child’s representatives sued the owner of the dog according to the Illinois Animal Control Act. The lawsuit stated that the boy was attacked by the owner’s dog in a place where he had a legal right to be and that he did not provoke the dog. Also, the complaint alleged that the owner failed to repair his fence sufficient to keep the dog on his premises. The defendant dismissed these contentions and the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries; however, this did not stop him from agreeing to a settlement of $1,125,000.
Trueblood vs. Pet Project; Will County; $230,000 Jury Award
This very interesting case started when the plaintiffs searched for a dog to purchase on the Internet. They used the website owned and operated by the defendant and selected a golden retriever that they were told had a very friendly demeanor. What the defendants did not tell the buyers was that the dog had previously attacked and bitten another child and was aggressive in its cage while waiting for a new owner. Without this information, the plaintiffs purchase the dog and brought it to their home where it savagely attacked their daughter who was just a child. The incident left her with various scars and disfigurement across face, shoulders, and arms. In the subsequent lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged various breaches of the Illinois Animal Control Act, express and implied warranties, and general duties to avoid negligence. At trial, the defendants did not argue that they caused the child’s injuries but denied the extent to which they were claimed. The jury found that the extent of her injuries were $230,000 along the following damages categories:
- Medical Costs:
- Pain and Suffering:
- Loss of normal life:
Berry vs. Eich; Will County; $55,000 Settlement
In this unfortunate case, a couple was babysitting an 11-month-old child when their dog ran up and bit the little boy. The attack left him with permanent scarring and bruises across his face. The parents of the child sued the couple for negligently supervising the dog as well as failing to warn them of the dog’s dangerous character and propensities. The defendants denied these allegations and the amount of the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries. However, faced with the prospect of a sympathetic jury and a battered child, they chose settlement over court and reached agreement with the plaintiffs at $55,000.
Rogel vs. Spuhler; Kendall County; $16,000 Settlement
The scene for this incident was the backyard in a small country town of western Illinois. A 9-year-old was walking through the yard of another when a dog came up and attacked him. As a result, he sustained several bruises and scars across his face. He sued the owner of the dog for failing to control his dog and failing to warn him about the dog’s dangerous behavior. The defendant countered that the boy was contributorily negligent by not keeping a better watch; that he was trespassing and that this trespass provoked the dog. Possibly as a result of these strong counter-arguments, both sides reached a rather low settlement amount ($16,000) especially when compared to the boy’s extensive injuries and medical bills.
Did You or a Loved One Suffer Scarring From a Dog Bite Attack?
Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC is committed to helping individuals recover compensation for their scarring injuries related to a dog bite attack. Our attorneys have worked on behalf of men, women and children to secure financial compensation for scarring related to dog bites and clawing. Our office is headquartered in Chicago, but we serve people from across Illinois and the entire midwest. Contact us for a free case review of your dog bite scarring case.