DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF FLORIDA

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

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. FLORIDA DOG BITE LAW - STRICT LIABILITY

A. Florida's Strict Liability Statute

Florida is a STRICT LIABILITY state for dog bite injuries. Under Florida Statutes § 767.04, a dog owner is liable for damages caused by their dog, regardless of the owner's knowledge of viciousness or negligence.

Fla. Stat. § 767.04 provides:

"The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such viciousness."

Key Florida Cases:

• Carroll v. Moxley, 241 So. 3d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) - Applied strict liability under § 767.04
• Vasquez v. Lopez, 509 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) - Established scope of strict liability
• Romero v. Harnett Veterinary Clinic, 639 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 1994) - Addressed keeper liability
• Powell v. Langford, 58 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1952) - Foundational strict liability case

B. Advantages of Strict Liability

Under Florida's strict liability framework:

☐ No Scienter Required: Plaintiff need NOT prove owner knew of dog's dangerous propensities
☐ No Prior Bite Needed: Liability attaches even for first-time incidents
☐ Automatic Liability: If dog bit plaintiff and plaintiff was lawfully present, owner is liable
☐ Public or Private Location: Statute applies in public places and private property (if lawfully present)

C. Statutory Defenses Under Florida Law

Under Fla. Stat. § 767.04, the owner may assert:

☐ Comparative Negligence: Victim's negligence reduces recovery proportionally
☐ "Bad Dog" Sign Defense: If owner displayed a prominent "Bad Dog" sign at the time of the attack, victim was over 6 years old, and attack occurred on owner's property, liability may be reduced or eliminated
☐ Trespass: Victim was not lawfully on the property
☐ Provocation: Victim provoked the attack

D. Bad Dog Sign Defense - Inapplicable Here

Fla. Stat. § 767.04 provides that a dog owner is not liable if:
- A "Bad Dog" sign was prominently displayed
- The victim was 6 years of age or older
- The attack occurred on the owner's enclosed property

This defense does NOT apply because:
☐ No "Bad Dog" sign was displayed
☐ The attack occurred in a public place / not on owner's enclosed property
☐ Our client is under 6 years of age [if applicable]
☐ The owner's negligence caused the attack regardless

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 Fla. Stat. § 767.11
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Photographs of the property, including any signage
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Spoliation of evidence under Florida law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions. Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2005).

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 local ordinance," etc.].

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

B. Lawful Presence

Under Fla. Stat. § 767.04, our client was lawfully present:

☐ In a public place (public sidewalk, park, street, etc.)
☐ On owner's property as an invited guest/social guest
☐ On owner's property to perform a duty imposed by law (mail carrier, utility worker, etc.)
☐ On owner's property as a business invitee

C. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack:

☐ [He/She] did not touch, pet, or interact with the dog
☐ [He/She] did not make sudden movements toward the dog
☐ [He/She] did not tease, torment, or abuse the dog
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked

IV. FLORIDA'S PURE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

A. Comparative Fault Standard

Florida follows pure comparative negligence under Fla. Stat. § 768.81. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but they can still recover even if they are more than 50% at fault.

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 provoke the dog in any way
☐ [He/She] exercised all reasonable care
☐ [He/She] did not approach or interact with the dog
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked and without warning

Any assertion of comparative negligence would be without merit.

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

Florida allows full recovery for:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Mental anguish
- Emotional distress
- Permanent scarring and disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Loss of capacity for enjoyment of life

E. Florida Damage Considerations

Florida does not impose statutory caps on compensatory damages in dog bite cases. Caps exist only in medical malpractice cases, which do not apply here.

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon Florida's strict liability statute, the clear liability of the dog owner, 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 Florida Statutes § 95.11(3)(a), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is four (4) years from the date of injury.

Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 4 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

Under Florida's strict liability statute, the dog owner is liable for all damages caused by this unprovoked attack. Our client was lawfully present at the location, and there is no viable defense to liability.

We are prepared to try this case before a Florida jury if necessary. Given Florida's favorable strict liability framework, liability is not in dispute.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Florida Bar Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

FLORIDA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Strict Liability State: Florida's § 767.04 imposes strict liability - no need to prove scienter or prior knowledge of viciousness.
• "Bad Dog" Sign Defense: May reduce liability if properly posted sign, victim over 6, and attack on owner's enclosed property.
• Dangerous Dog Statute: Fla. Stat. § 767.11 et seq. provides for dangerous dog designation and additional penalties.
• Pure Comparative Negligence: Florida uses pure comparative - plaintiff can recover even if more than 50% at fault (reduced proportionally).
• 4-Year SOL: Florida has a generous 4-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
• No Damage Caps: No caps on compensatory damages in dog bite cases.
• Landlord Liability: Florida allows claims against landlords who knew of dangerous dog - Vasquez v. Lopez.
• Local Ordinances: Research county and municipal dangerous dog and leash law ordinances.

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