DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK
STATE OF IDAHO
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Idaho ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Idaho
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] in [County] County, Idaho. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement under Idaho law.
I. IDAHO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under Idaho Code Section 5-219(4), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Idaho is two (2) years from the date of injury. This attack occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
B. Idaho Dog Bite Liability - Common Law One-Bite Rule
Idaho follows the common law "one-bite" rule for dog bite liability. Idaho does not have a strict liability dog bite statute. Under Idaho common law, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by their dog when:
- The dog had dangerous or vicious propensities; AND
- The owner knew or should have known of those dangerous propensities (scienter).
See Boswell v. Steele, 158 Idaho 554, 348 P.3d 497 (Ct. App. 2015).
C. Key Elements Under Idaho Law
To establish liability under the one-bite rule, a plaintiff must prove:
- Dangerous Propensity: The dog had a tendency to cause injury or behave dangerously;
- Scienter: The owner knew or should have known of this propensity;
- Causation: The dog's dangerous propensity caused the injury; AND
- Damages: The plaintiff suffered compensable harm.
D. Idaho Comparative Negligence
Idaho follows modified comparative negligence under Idaho Code Section 6-801. A plaintiff may recover damages only if their fault is less than that of the defendant(s). If the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred. Any recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Our client bears absolutely no responsibility for this attack.
E. Idaho Dangerous Dog Statute - Idaho Code Section 25-2805
Idaho law provides for control of dangerous dogs under Idaho Code Section 25-2805. A dog may be deemed dangerous if it has:
- Caused injury to a person without provocation; OR
- Killed or injured domestic animals without provocation.
Owners of dogs declared dangerous must comply with specific requirements or face potential seizure and destruction of the animal.
F. Relevant Idaho Case Law
- Boswell v. Steele, 158 Idaho 554, 348 P.3d 497 (Ct. App. 2015) - Knowledge requirement for dog owner liability
- Drake v. Dean, 15 P.3d 915 (Idaho 2000) - General negligence principles
- Anderson v. Farmers Insurance Co. of Idaho, 130 Idaho 755, 947 P.2d 1003 (1997) - Insurance coverage issues
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/[City] animal control records
- [ ] 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 Idaho Code Section 25-2805
- [ ] 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 Idaho 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," "jogging along [Road/Trail Name]," "in [his/her] own yard," etc.] in [City], [County] County, Idaho.
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 [City/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. Evidence of Scienter (Prior Knowledge of Dangerous Propensities)
CRITICAL UNDER IDAHO'S ONE-BITE RULE: The dog owner knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous propensities. Evidence establishing scienter includes:
- [ ] Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]. [Provide details of prior incidents.]
- [ ] Prior Aggressive Behavior: This dog has displayed aggressive behavior on multiple occasions, including [describe: lunging, growling, snapping, chasing, attacking other animals, etc.].
- [ ] Complaints to Animal Control: [Number] complaints have been filed with [City/County] Animal Control regarding this dog.
- [ ] "Dangerous Dog" Designation: This animal has been designated as a "dangerous dog" under Idaho Code Section 25-2805.
- [ ] Warning Signs: The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the property, demonstrating awareness of the animal's dangerous nature.
- [ ] Breed Characteristics: The owner selected and owned a breed known for aggressive tendencies and was aware of these characteristics.
- [ ] Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe admissions regarding the dog's temperament or prior incidents].
- [ ] Witness Statements: Neighbors and others can attest to prior incidents involving this animal.
- [ ] Attack on Other Animals: The dog has previously attacked or killed other animals.
C. Violation of Local Leash Law
At the time of the attack, [City/County] had in effect [Municipal Code Section / County Ordinance Number], which requires dogs to be:
- [ ] On a leash when in public areas
- [ ] Under the direct control of the owner at all times
- [ ] Confined to the owner's property by adequate fencing
The dog was not on a leash and not under the owner's control at the time of the attack, in direct violation of this ordinance. This violation constitutes negligence per se.
D. 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]
Under Idaho law, provocation may be a defense. No provocation occurred here.
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Common Law One-Bite Rule Liability
All elements required for liability under Idaho's common law one-bite rule are satisfied:
1. Dangerous/Vicious Propensity: The dog's dangerous propensity is established by:
- [Prior biting incidents]
- [Prior aggressive behavior]
- [Complaints to animal control]
- [Warning signs posted by owner]
- [Other evidence of dangerous propensity]
2. Scienter (Owner's Knowledge): The owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensity because:
- [List specific evidence of owner's knowledge]
- [Prior incidents reported to owner]
- [Owner's admissions]
- [Witnesses who informed owner]
3. Causation: The dog's dangerous propensities directly caused our client's injuries when it attacked and bit our client.
4. Damages: Our client suffered substantial damages as detailed below.
B. Negligence Theory
Alternatively, the owner is liable under traditional negligence principles:
Duty: Dog owners in Idaho owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm to others.
Breach: The owner breached this duty by:
- [ ] Failing to properly restrain the dog on a leash
- [ ] Failing to properly confine the dog to the property
- [ ] Failing to maintain secure fencing
- [ ] Failing to warn of the dog's dangerous propensities
- [ ] Failing to adequately supervise the animal
- [ ] [Other specific 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 [City/County Code Section] (leash law) constitutes negligence per se under Idaho law. The ordinance was designed to protect persons like our client from dog attacks, and its violation establishes breach of duty as a matter of law.
D. Dangerous Dog Statute - Idaho Code Section 25-2805
[If applicable:] This dog was previously declared a "dangerous dog" under Idaho Code Section 25-2805 on [Date]. This classification establishes:
- Prior recognition of the dog's dangerous nature
- Owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities
- Duty to exercise heightened care in controlling the animal
The owner's failure to properly control a known dangerous dog 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 Idaho 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 (including rabies exposure)
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., St. Luke's, Saint Alphonsus, Kootenai Health, etc.] Emergency Department, where [he/she] received:
- [ ] Wound irrigation and debridement
- [ ] Suturing / wound closure ([number] sutures)
- [ ] Tetanus prophylaxis
- [ ] Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) series
- [ ] Antibiotic therapy
- [ ] Pain management
- [ ] Diagnostic imaging
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] |
| [Hospital] | Rabies PEP Series | $[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, rabies vaccinations, 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 [describe activities affected by fear of dogs, physical limitations, etc.].
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 clear liability of the dog owner under Idaho's one-bite rule and common law negligence, 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 Idaho for similar attacks
- The strong evidence of owner knowledge (scienter)
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
- [ ] Evidence of prior incidents
- [ ] Witness statements
- [ ] Employment records and wage verification
X. CONCLUSION
The dog owner in this case had actual and/or constructive knowledge of this dog's dangerous propensities. Despite this knowledge, the owner failed to properly control the animal, resulting in a vicious attack on our client. Under Idaho's one-bite rule, the owner is fully liable for all damages caused.
We are prepared to file suit in the District Court of the [Judicial District], [County] County, Idaho, 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]
Idaho State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
File
IDAHO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] One-Bite Rule State: Idaho requires proof of scienter (owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities). Build a strong case for prior knowledge.
-
[ ] No Strict Liability: Idaho does NOT have a strict liability dog bite statute. Must prove knowledge.
-
[ ] Comparative Negligence: Idaho's 50% bar rule means provocation or contributory fault of 50% or more is a complete bar.
-
[ ] Local Ordinances: Check city and county leash laws. Violations support negligence per se claims.
-
[ ] Dangerous Dog Law: Idaho Code Section 25-2805 provides framework for dangerous dog designations. Check for prior classifications.
-
[ ] Non-Economic Damage Caps: Idaho Code Section 6-1603 caps non-economic damages in personal injury cases at $250,000 (adjusted periodically). Verify current cap.
-
[ ] Venue: District Court of the county where the attack occurred or where defendant resides.