DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[Washington, D.C. ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the District of Columbia

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. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOG BITE LAW

A. D.C.'s Legal Framework

The District of Columbia follows the common law "one-bite" or scienter rule for dog bite liability, but also recognizes negligence per se for violations of D.C. animal control laws, particularly the leash law provisions of D.C. Code § 8-1808.

Key D.C. Cases:

• Drake v. Dean, 15 App. D.C. 83 (D.C. Cir. 1899) - Established scienter requirement under one-bite rule
• Smith v. Royer, 181 F.2d 889 (D.C. Cir. 1950) - Knowledge of vicious propensity must be established
• Slack v. Villari, 59 Md. App. 462 (1984) - Applied in D.C. for landlord liability
• Warrick v. Farley, 95 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D.D.C. 2015) - Applied D.C. dog bite law

B. Two Theories of Liability

Theory 1: Scienter (One-Bite Rule)

Under the one-bite rule, a dog owner is liable if:
- The dog had a dangerous or vicious propensity
- The owner knew or should have known of this propensity
- The propensity caused the plaintiff's injuries

Theory 2: Negligence Per Se (Leash Law Violation)

Under D.C. Code § 8-1808, dogs must be leashed or under the control of their owner in public spaces. Violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se, establishing the duty and breach elements automatically.

C. Establishing Owner Knowledge (Scienter)

Evidence of owner's knowledge 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 D.C. Animal Care and Control
☐ "Dangerous Dog" Designation: Official designation under D.C. Code § 8-1901
☐ 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

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 and registration documents
☐ Prior bite reports or complaints
☐ Any "dangerous dog" designations under D.C. Code § 8-1901
☐ Communications with D.C. Animal Care and Control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Spoliation of evidence may result in adverse inferences and sanctions.

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 in front of [Address]," "visiting the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," etc.].

At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred - e.g., "escaped from the owner's property," "was off-leash in violation of D.C. Code § 8-1808," etc.].

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

B. Leash Law Violation (If Applicable)

The attack occurred because the dog was off-leash in violation of D.C. Code § 8-1808, which requires:

"A person owning, keeping, or having custody of a dog in the District shall not permit the dog to be on public space in the District unless the dog is on a leash and in the immediate control of a person capable of managing the dog."

This violation constitutes negligence per se.

C. Evidence of Owner's Knowledge (Scienter)

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

[Detail specific evidence of prior incidents, complaints, owner knowledge, etc.]

D. No Provocation

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

IV. CRITICAL: D.C.'S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE RULE

A. D.C.'s Harsh Standard

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RETAINS PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Under D.C. law, if the plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their own injuries, they are completely barred from any recovery. Wingfield v. People's Drug Stores, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977).

B. Our Client Had No Fault

[Client Name] bore absolutely no responsibility for this attack:

☐ [He/She] was lawfully present at the location
☐ [He/She] did not approach, touch, or interact with the dog
☐ [He/She] did not engage in any provoking behavior
☐ [He/She] exercised all reasonable care
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked and without warning

Any assertion of contributory negligence would be baseless and will not withstand scrutiny.

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

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

D.C. law allows recovery for:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Mental anguish
- Emotional distress
- Permanent scarring and disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life

E. No Damage Caps in D.C.

The District of Columbia does not impose statutory caps on compensatory damages in personal injury cases.

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner through both scienter and negligence per se, the severity of injuries, and the substantial damages, we hereby demand:

$[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. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Under D.C. Code § 12-301(8), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three (3) years from the date of injury.

Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 3 years]

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

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

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal. Whether under the scienter doctrine or negligence per se for leash law violations, liability is clear. Given D.C.'s contributory negligence rule, the defendant cannot prevail on comparative fault - our client bears no responsibility whatsoever.

We are prepared to try this case before a D.C. jury if necessary. We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
D.C. Bar Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Contributory Negligence: D.C. is a pure contributory negligence jurisdiction. ANY fault by plaintiff bars recovery entirely. Critical to document complete lack of provocation.
• Two Theories Available: Pursue both scienter (one-bite rule) and negligence per se (leash law violation) claims.
• Leash Law: D.C. Code § 8-1808 requires dogs to be leashed in public - violation is negligence per se.
• Dangerous Dog Act: D.C. Code § 8-1901 et seq. provides for designation of dangerous dogs and additional penalties.
• 3-Year SOL: Personal injury claims have a longer 3-year statute of limitations under D.C. Code § 12-301(8).
• No Damage Caps: D.C. does not cap compensatory damages.
• Landlord Liability: Consider claims against landlords who knew of dangerous dog on property.

This template must be reviewed and customized by a D.C.-licensed attorney before use.