Maryland Highest Court Creates Strict Liability for Pit Bulls

Details

Category: Breaking News

Published on Saturday, 28 April 2012 17:19

Written by Fred M. Kray

Close 4-3 Decision Creates Strict Liability
For Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes

Dogsbites.org and ASPCA file Amicus Briefs

Maryland's highest court decided in a very close decision that owners of pit bulls and pit bull mixes are strictly liable for injuries caused by dogbites.  Landlords who rent to pit bull or pit bull mixes, know the tenant has a pit bull or pit bull mix, and fail to take action, will also be liable for bites by the tenant's dog. The full opinion can be read here. Other news analysis of the decision can be read here, here, and here.

I will be discussing the case in depth on Tuesday's radio show. The case only affects Maryland.  The majority of states, including Florida, already have strict liability for damage done by dogs regardless of breed. There are a lot of issues not decided in the case, that will require further litigation. Having said that, Maryland Pit Bulls will probably not be able to be adopted out, and owners will have a much more difficult time finding rentals with their dogs.

If you want your blood to boil, take a look at the Amicus Brief filed by Dogsbite.org, here. Thankfully, the court did get to see both sides, since the ASPCA filed an amicus on the other side. 

Tune in Tuesday to hear what the lawyer defending the case had to say about it. We will also be talking with attorney Jennifer Edwards who is handling the Denver Pit Bull Service Dog litigation.

No comments

Fiala v. Dogs Deserve Better - Case Dismissed!

Details

Category: Breaking News

Published on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 17:06

Written by Super User

Fiala Dismisses Her Claims Against DDB

Ms. Fiala apparently dismissed her claims against DDB yesterday.  It is a lot more complicated legally than what it seems.  Fiala dismissed those claims ruled upon by the court-forgery, written contract and conversion with prejudice.  This means they are forever barred from being brought again.

But the other claims, implied contract and deceptive trade practices, were dismissed without prejudice, meaning these claims can be filed again, as long as it is before the statute of limitations runs.

It appears no settlement efforts were made by Fiala.  One can only speculate what the thinking was behind these dismissals. It does end the current litigation, and the remaining claims seem weak to me. Perhaps this was a way to bow out gracefully.  

There was nothing DDB could do to prevent this move.  It is totally within the discretion of the Plaintiff in a case as to when they choose to dismiss. However, there is a rule that it requires agreement of the Defendant or a Court Order, neither of which were secured here.

So, Court's out! For now.

1 comments

Fiala Loses Motion to Vacate Anti-Harassment Order

Details

Category: Breaking News

Published on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 17:40

Written by Super User

Fiala Motion to Vacate Anti-Harassment Order Denied

Court Finds No Excusable Neglect or Meritorious Defense

When last we left this litigation, DDB's Motion for Summary Judgment on the contract and conversion issues was granted.  Fiala, however, failed to attend the Anti-Harassment Motion filed by Page and an Anti-Harassment Order was entered (previously reported here). Fiala moved to set aside the order, on the basis that she thought it had been continued, see her Motion here.  DDB filed a reply to her Motion here, in which they argued that Fiala knew or should have known about the hearing, and that even after the Court entered its order, she continued to villify DDB's attorney, calling for his disbarment on this very site.  Fiala moved to strike, and filed a reply affidavit, arguing that the entrance of an anti-harassment order against her could result in problems with her medical license, which can be read here. 

The court denied Fiala's Motion in this order.  The court felt that since Fiala was the one to continue the Summary Judgment hearing, the onus was on her to determine whether the anti-harassment hearing was continued as well. There was no excusable neglect.  In addition, the court determined that Fiala did not have a meritorious defense.  She continued to contact the DDB representative despite a letter from DDB's attorney telling her not to. Thus the anti-harassment order will remain in effect until July of next year.

The court granted DDB's attorney fees for this hearing in the amount of $1625. This amount plus attorney fees granted with respect to prior hearing brings Fiala's bill for DDB's fees to a grand total of $3393.

Settlement anyone?

No comments

Fiala v. Dogs Deserve Better - DDB Motion for Summary Judgment Granted

Details

Category: Breaking News

Published on Tuesday, 09 August 2011 02:06

Written by Super User

DDB wins Summary Judgment
Ownership Rights to Joel Awarded to DDB

The court granted DDB's Motion for Summary Judgment today, a copy of the order can be read here. The order grants Summary Judgment to DDB on Fiala's claims based on contract and conversion. The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning that the order is final and Fiala cannot amend or bring the claim again absent an appeal.  While the order does not specify the grounds for the order, it seems that the basis of the order is simple: Fiala made a material alteration to the contract to which DDB never agreed.

The court also struck the affidavit of Hewko filed late (the day before the hearing), the order for which can be read here.

What is the significance of the order?  It should put to rest all claims regarding ownership of Joel. There are some other counts in the complaint, unfair trade practices act and implied contract, but in my opinion, the implied contract count should be dismissed as was the written contract count and the unfair trade practices act has nothing to do with the ownership of Joel.

The ultimate question, of course, is where does the case go from here? That will depend on how Fiala decides to proceed. Will she soldier on to the bitter end or cut her losses and move on? 

To follow this story and other legal news relating to Pit bulls, join our Facebook page.  Our next story will involve BDL in Moses Lake, WA.

No comments