DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK
STATE OF HAWAII
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Hawaii ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Hawaii
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]
Island: [Oahu / Maui / Big Island / Kauai / etc.]
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] on the island of [Island Name], Hawaii. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement under Hawaii law.
I. HAWAII-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 657-7, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Hawaii is two (2) years from the date of injury. This attack occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
B. Hawaii Strict Liability - HRS Section 663-9
Hawaii is a strict liability state for dog bites. Under HRS Section 663-9, dog owners are liable for injuries caused by their dogs regardless of whether the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities:
"The owner or harborer of any dog which on or after January 1, 1988, bites any person shall be liable in damages to the person bitten regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or harborer's knowledge of the viciousness. This section shall not apply to any governmental agency using dogs in military or police work, nor to any person who is bitten while in the act of committing a tort."
C. Key Elements Under Hawaii Strict Liability
Under HRS Section 663-9, a plaintiff need only prove:
- The defendant owned or harbored the dog;
- The dog bit the plaintiff; AND
- The plaintiff was not committing a tort at the time of the bite.
No proof of prior viciousness or owner knowledge is required. This is true strict liability.
D. Hawaii Comparative Negligence
Hawaii follows modified comparative negligence under HRS Section 663-31. A plaintiff may recover damages only if their negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of all defendants (51% bar rule). Any recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Our client bears absolutely no responsibility for this attack.
E. Hawaii Dangerous Dog Law - HRS Sections 142-74 to 142-75
Hawaii law provides for classification of dogs as "dangerous dogs" under HRS Section 142-74. A dangerous dog is one that:
- Has killed or injured a person without provocation on public or private property; OR
- Has killed or injured a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property.
Owners of dangerous dogs must comply with strict requirements under HRS Section 142-75.
F. Relevant Hawaii Case Law
- Hubbell v. Iseke, 727 P.2d 1131 (Haw. 1986) - Dog owner liability standards
- Guth v. Freeland, 28 P.3d 982 (Haw. 2001) - Duty of care in premises liability
- Medeiros v. Kondo, 522 P.2d 1269 (Haw. 1974) - Comparative negligence principles
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 to our office)
- [ ] All veterinary records for the animal
- [ ] Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
- [ ] Animal licensing and registration documents
- [ ] [County] County animal control records
- [ ] Hawaii Department of Health Rabies Quarantine records (if applicable)
- [ ] All photographs or videos of the animal
- [ ] Prior bite reports or complaints regarding this animal
- [ ] Prior aggressive incidents involving this animal
- [ ] Any "dangerous dog" designations under HRS Section 142-74
- [ ] Communications with animal control or authorities
- [ ] Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
- [ ] Any liability exclusions or breed-specific riders
- [ ] Lease agreements (if renting) and any pet policies
- [ ] Training records for the animal
- [ ] Proof of confinement measures (fencing, leash, muzzle)
Destruction of any evidence, including euthanasia of the animal without proper notice and opportunity for examination, may result in adverse inferences and sanctions under Hawaii 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 in front of [Address]," "visiting the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," "hiking on [Trail Name]," "at [Beach Name]," etc.] on the island of [Island Name], in [City/Town], Hawaii.
At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred - e.g., "escaped from the owner's property through an unsecured gate," "was off-leash in violation of the [County] leash ordinance," "broke free from its leash when the owner lost control," "attacked without warning or provocation," etc.].
The dog attacked our client viciously and without provocation. [Describe the attack in detail]:
[Example: "The dog lunged at our client, knocked [him/her] to the ground, and bit [him/her] repeatedly on the [body parts affected]. Our client attempted to protect [himself/herself] but was unable to fend off the animal. The attack lasted approximately [duration] before [describe how attack ended]."]
B. Compliance with Statutory Requirements
Under HRS Section 663-9, the only requirements are:
-
Dog Bite: The dog clearly bit our client, causing the injuries documented herein.
-
Ownership: [Dog Owner Name] is the owner/harborer of the dog.
-
Not Committing a Tort: Our client was not committing any tort at the time of the attack. [He/She] was lawfully present and engaged in peaceful activity.
C. No Provocation
Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. At the time of the incident, our client was:
- [ ] Peacefully and lawfully present at the location
- [ ] Not interacting with or approaching the dog
- [ ] Not engaging in any behavior that could be construed as threatening
- [ ] Not teasing, tormenting, or abusing the animal
- [ ] [Not on the dog owner's property / An invited guest on the property]
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability Under HRS Section 663-9
Liability is established as a matter of law under Hawaii's strict liability statute:
1. Ownership/Harboring: [Dog Owner Name] owned or harbored the dog that attacked our client. This element is undisputed.
2. Bite Injury: The dog bit our client, causing the severe injuries documented in this demand. This element is established by medical records and photographs.
3. No Tort by Plaintiff: Our client was not committing any tort at the time of the attack. [He/She] was [describe lawful activity].
Under HRS Section 663-9, these elements establish liability regardless of:
- Whether the dog had ever bitten anyone before
- Whether the owner knew of any dangerous propensities
- Whether the owner exercised reasonable care
B. Alternative Negligence Theory
In addition to strict liability, the owner is liable under traditional negligence principles:
Duty: Dog owners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm.
Breach: The owner breached this duty by:
- [ ] Violating the [County] leash law
- [ ] Failing to properly secure the animal
- [ ] Failing to maintain secure fencing
- [ ] Failing to adequately supervise the animal
- [ ] [Other breaches]
Causation: The breach directly caused our client's injuries.
Damages: Our client suffered substantial damages as detailed below.
C. Negligence Per Se
The dog owner's violation of [County Ordinance / Municipal Code Section] (leash law) constitutes negligence per se under Hawaii law. The ordinance was designed to protect persons like our client from dog attacks.
D. Dangerous Dog Liability - HRS Section 142-75
[If applicable:] This dog was previously classified as a "dangerous dog" under HRS Section 142-74. Under HRS Section 142-75, the owner was required to:
- [ ] Maintain proper enclosure
- [ ] Post warning signs
- [ ] Maintain liability insurance
- [ ] Keep the dog muzzled and on a leash when outside the enclosure
- [ ] Ensure the dog was microchipped
Violation of these requirements creates additional grounds for liability.
E. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)
[If attack occurred on rental property:]
[Landlord Name], as owner of the premises at [Address], may also be liable under Hawaii law if the landlord:
- [ ] Knew of the dog's dangerous propensities
- [ ] Had the authority to remove the animal
- [ ] Permitted the dog to remain on the premises despite knowledge of danger
V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
A. Description of Injuries
The attack caused severe injuries to our client, including:
Bite Wounds:
- [ ] [Location] - [Description: puncture wound, laceration, avulsion, etc.]
- [ ] [Location] - [Description]
- [ ] [Location] - [Description]
Secondary Injuries:
- [ ] Soft tissue damage
- [ ] Nerve damage
- [ ] Tendon/ligament damage
- [ ] Bone fractures
- [ ] Crush injuries
- [ ] Infection risk
Scarring and Disfigurement:
- [ ] Permanent scarring to [body parts]
- [ ] Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery
- [ ] Keloid formation
Psychological Injuries:
- [ ] Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- [ ] Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
- [ ] Anxiety and panic attacks
- [ ] Depression
- [ ] Sleep disturbances / nightmares
B. Emergency Treatment
Immediately following the attack, our client was transported to [Hospital Name - e.g., Queen's Medical Center, Straub Medical Center, Maui Memorial, etc.] Emergency Department, where [he/she] received:
- [ ] Wound irrigation and debridement
- [ ] Suturing / wound closure ([number] sutures)
- [ ] Tetanus prophylaxis
- [ ] Antibiotic therapy
- [ ] Pain management
- [ ] Diagnostic imaging
Note: Hawaii is a rabies-free state, so rabies post-exposure prophylaxis is generally not required for bites occurring in Hawaii from animals that have not recently traveled from outside the state.
C. Follow-Up Treatment
[Detail all follow-up medical treatment, specialists, surgeries, physical therapy, mental health treatment, etc.]
D. Prognosis
[Describe current status, permanent conditions, future treatment needs]
VI. DAMAGES
A. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Ambulance Service] | Emergency Transport | $[Amount] |
| [Hospital] | Emergency Department | $[Amount] |
| [Follow-up providers] | [Services] | $[Amount] |
| [Plastic Surgeon] | [Services] | $[Amount] |
| [Mental Health] | Therapy | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Future Scar Revision Surgery | $[Amount] |
| Continued Mental Health Treatment | $[Amount] |
| Future Medications | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lost Wages ([dates]) | $[Amount] |
| Lost PTO/Sick Time | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Pain and Suffering
Physical Pain:
Our client has endured excruciating pain from the initial attack, wound treatment, surgical procedures, and ongoing recovery.
Emotional Distress:
Our client suffers from PTSD, fear of dogs, anxiety, and ongoing psychological trauma requiring professional treatment.
Permanent Disfigurement:
Our client has permanent, visible scarring on [body parts] that causes ongoing embarrassment and self-consciousness.
Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
Our client can no longer enjoy outdoor activities, beaches, and hiking trails without fear of encountering dogs. [Describe other limitations.]
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Permanent Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress / PTSD | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
A. Demand Amount
Based upon the strict liability imposed by HRS Section 663-9, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
[OR - Policy Limits Demand:]
TENDER OF FULL POLICY LIMITS OF $[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].
C. Basis for Demand
This demand reflects:
- Medical expenses of $[Amount]
- Lost wages of $[Amount]
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- Comparable verdicts and settlements in Hawaii for similar attacks
- The strength of strict liability under HRS Section 663-9
VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE
We demand disclosure of all applicable insurance coverage, including:
- [ ] Homeowner's insurance policy declarations page
- [ ] Renter's insurance policy (if applicable)
- [ ] Umbrella/excess liability policy
- [ ] Any exclusions or limitations for animal-related claims
- [ ] All policy limits applicable to this claim
IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- [ ] Medical records and bills from all providers
- [ ] Photographs of injuries
- [ ] Police/Animal Control incident report
- [ ] [County] Humane Society records
- [ ] Witness statements
- [ ] Employment records and wage verification
X. CONCLUSION
Under Hawaii's strict liability statute, HRS Section 663-9, the dog owner is liable for our client's injuries as a matter of law. Our client was not committing any tort when the owner's dog viciously attacked [him/her], causing permanent physical and psychological injuries.
We are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court of the [First/Second/Third/Fifth] Circuit, State of Hawaii, if this matter cannot be resolved promptly and fairly.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Hawaii Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
File
HAWAII-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] Strict Liability State: Hawaii imposes strict liability under HRS Section 663-9. No need to prove prior viciousness or owner knowledge.
-
[ ] Only Defense - Committing Tort: The only statutory defense is that the victim was committing a tort at the time of the bite.
-
[ ] Rabies-Free State: Hawaii is rabies-free, so rabies PEP is generally not needed for bites occurring in Hawaii.
-
[ ] Comparative Negligence: Hawaii follows the 51% bar rule. Provocation may reduce recovery.
-
[ ] County Ordinances: Verify local leash laws for each county (Honolulu, Maui, Hawaii, Kauai).
-
[ ] Venue: Circuit Court of the circuit where the attack occurred or defendant resides.
-
[ ] Arbitration: Hawaii requires mandatory arbitration for claims under $150,000 in some circuits.