Dog Bite Demand Letter - Arkansas

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF ARKANSAS

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Arkansas ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Arkansas

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Adjuster Name / Dog Owner Name]
[Insurance Company Name / Address]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: DOG BITE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Attack: [Date of Attack]
Location of Attack: [Address where attack occurred]
Dog Owner: [Dog Owner Name]
Dog Breed/Description: [Breed, Size, Color]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Homeowner's Policy Number: [If known]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for the serious and permanent injuries sustained as a result of a vicious dog attack that occurred on [Date of Attack]. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. ARKANSAS DOG BITE LAW

A. Filing-Date and Claim Control

This letter does not commence an action or toll a deadline. Before sending it, counsel must identify every claim and defendant, determine accrual and any tolling or notice issue from current controlling authority, and calendar the earliest plausible filing deadline: [__/__/____].

B. Arkansas Dog Bite Law - Scienter / One-Bite Rule

Arkansas follows the common law scienter or "one-bite" rule for dog bite liability. Under this doctrine, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by their dog if the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous or vicious propensities.

Key Elements:

1. The dog was of a vicious species, or, though domesticated, had dangerous tendencies;
2. The owner knew or had notice of the dog's propensity to injure people; and
3. That propensity caused the plaintiff's injuries.

It is not necessary to prove the dog ever bit anyone before — only that the owner had notice of the animal's propensity to injure people; and it is immaterial whether the animal acted out of savagery or out of playfulness.

Van Houten v. Pritchard, 315 Ark. 688, 870 S.W.2d 377 (1994), states both the dangerous-tendency/owner-knowledge rule and that a prior bite is unnecessary when the owner had notice of a propensity to injure people.

C. Ordinary-Negligence Alternative

Van Houten distinguishes strict liability from ordinary negligence. For a dog customarily allowed to run at large, the opinion does not impose a general constant-control duty merely because the animal was loose. It recognizes that violation of an applicable leash law may be some evidence of ordinary negligence and that an owner who sees a dog about to attack must exercise reasonable care to prevent harm.

Identify the exact duty before asserting negligence:

• ☐ Owner knew of a dangerous propensity: [________________________________]
• ☐ Applicable local restraint rule, exact text and date: [________________________________]
• ☐ Owner observed an imminent attack and failed to use reasonable care: [________________________________]
• ☐ Other duty supported by current authority: [________________________________]

Do not label an ordinance violation negligence per se or assume that a scienter, negligence, landlord, premises, comparative-fault, or damages theory applies without separate current-law review.

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this attack and the subject animal, including but not limited to:

☐ The animal itself (do not destroy, euthanize, or transfer without notice)
☐ All veterinary records for the animal
☐ Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
☐ Animal licensing documents
☐ Prior bite reports or complaints
☐ Any "dangerous dog" designations
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Please suspend routine destruction or transfer of the identified material and confirm the preservation measures taken. Counsel must separately verify any legal preservation duty, privilege, control issue, or remedy before stating it as law.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Attack

On [Date of Attack], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity - e.g., "walking on the public sidewalk," "visiting the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," etc.] in [City], [County] County, Arkansas.

At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred].

The dog attacked our client viciously and without provocation. [Describe the attack in detail].

B. Evidence of Owner's Knowledge (Scienter)

[Dog Owner Name] knew or should have known of this dog's dangerous propensities. Evidence includes:

☐ Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]
☐ Prior Aggressive Behavior: Documented history of lunging, growling, snapping, or chasing
☐ Complaints to Authorities: Prior complaints to animal control
☐ Warning Signs Posted: "Beware of Dog" signs demonstrating owner's knowledge
☐ Owner Admissions: Prior statements about dog's temperament
☐ Breed-Specific Knowledge: Owner awareness of breed tendencies
☐ "Dangerous Dog" Designation: Official designation under local ordinance

C. Negligence Theory — Use Only After Duty Review

Even without proof of prior knowledge, the owner was negligent in:

☐ Failing to properly secure the animal on the property
☐ Allowing the animal to run at large in violation of applicable local leash/confinement ordinances
☐ Failing to use appropriate restraints
☐ Violating local leash laws
☐ Failing to warn visitors of the dog's presence

D. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was peacefully and lawfully present at the location.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Primary Theory - Scienter / One-Bite Rule

Under Arkansas common law, [Dog Owner Name] is liable for our client's injuries because:

1. The dog had dangerous propensities - [Describe]
2. The owner had knowledge - [Describe evidence]
3. Causation - The dog's dangerous propensities caused our client's injuries

See Van Houten v. Pritchard, 315 Ark. 688, 870 S.W.2d 377 (1994).

B. Alternative Theory — Negligence

The owner also breached the following independently verified duty:
☐ Violating [EXACT LOCAL RESTRAINT RULE], which is offered as evidence of ordinary negligence
☐ Observing the dog about to attack and failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm
☐ Other current duty and authority: [________________________________]

C. Local-Ordinance Evidence

Van Houten describes a leash-law violation as some evidence of ordinary negligence, not automatic negligence per se. Insert only the ordinance that was in force at the incident location and date:
☐ [City/County] Ordinance Section [Number] - Leash Law
☐ [City/County] Ordinance Section [Number] - Confinement Requirements
☐ [City/County] Ordinance Section [Number] - Dangerous/Vicious Dog Provisions

D. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Do not assert landlord liability until counsel verifies the landlord's status, notice, control, lease rights, location, and the current Arkansas authority establishing each required element.

E. Defenses Inapplicable

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.

Claimant Conduct: The facts concerning conduct before and during the incident are [________________________________]. Counsel must apply the current defense and fault-allocation law before making a legal conclusion.

Trespass: Our client was lawfully present at the location of the attack.

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Description of Injuries

The attack caused severe injuries to our client, including:

Bite Wounds:
☐ [Location] - [Description]
☐ [Location] - [Description]

Secondary Injuries:
☐ Soft tissue damage
☐ Nerve damage
☐ Infection risk
☐ Scarring and disfigurement

Psychological Injuries:
☐ Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
☐ Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
☐ Anxiety and panic attacks
☐ Depression

B. Medical Treatment

[Detail emergency treatment, follow-up care, surgeries, mental health treatment]

C. Prognosis

[Detail permanent conditions, ongoing treatment needs, future care requirements]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Document each claimed noneconomic loss and add it only after counsel confirms it is recoverable under the selected claim:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Mental anguish
• Emotional distress
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement
• Loss of enjoyment of life

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based on the supported liability theory, documented injuries, and substantiated losses summarized above, Claimant proposes settlement in the amount of:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

B. Time for Response

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

☐ Medical records and bills
☐ Photographs of injuries
☐ Animal Control report
☐ Police report
☐ Witness statements
☐ Employment records
☐ Prior incident documentation
☐ HIPAA authorizations

IX. CONCLUSION

Claimant contends that the animal had the dangerous tendencies and owner-notice facts documented above and that the attack caused the stated injuries.

Claimant reserves any filing option available after counsel verifies the claim, parties, forum, defenses, remedies, and deadline.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Arkansas Bar ID No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

ARKANSAS-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• One-Bite/Scienter Rule: Arkansas follows the common law rule requiring proof of owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities. Document all prior incidents.
• No prior bite required: Van Houten requires notice of a propensity to injure people, not proof of a prior bite.
• Negligence is not automatic: Identify a current duty. Van Houten treats a leash-law violation as some evidence of negligence rather than negligence per se.
• Separate research: Verify the filing period and accrual, claimant conduct and fault allocation, landlord or premises theories, recoverable damages, insurance issues, forum, venue, and the exact local ordinance before sending.

This template must be reviewed and customized by an Arkansas-licensed attorney before use.