DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF MARYLAND

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

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, Maryland. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to Maryland law.

I. MARYLAND-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Maryland Code Annotated, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 5-101, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bite cases, is three (3) years from the date of the attack. This claim arises from an attack that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

B. Contributory Negligence - Critical Maryland Doctrine

Maryland is one of only four jurisdictions that follows the doctrine of pure contributory negligence. Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679 (2013). Under this doctrine, if a plaintiff is found to bear any responsibility for their injuries, they are completely barred from recovery.

Our client bears absolutely no responsibility for this attack. As detailed below, our client was lawfully present at the location and did nothing to provoke this animal.

C. Maryland Dog Bite Liability Law - Section 3-1901

Following the Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Tracey v. Solesky, 427 Md. 627 (2012), the Maryland General Assembly enacted Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 3-1901, which provides a modified approach to dog bite liability:

"(b) In an action against an owner of a dog for damages for personal injury or death caused by the dog, evidence that the dog caused the personal injury or death creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities."

This statutory presumption places the burden on the dog owner to prove lack of knowledge of dangerous propensities, rather than requiring the victim to prove prior vicious behavior.

D. Maryland Non-Economic Damage Caps

Maryland Code Annotated, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 11-108 caps non-economic damages in personal injury cases. For injuries occurring in 2024, the cap is $920,000 (this amount adjusts annually). This cap applies per plaintiff for non-economic damages including pain and suffering, disfigurement, and emotional distress.

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
• All photographs or videos of the animal
• Prior bite reports or complaints regarding this animal
• Prior aggressive incidents involving this animal
• Any "dangerous dog" or "potentially dangerous dog" designations
• 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

Destruction of any evidence may constitute spoliation and will result in adverse inferences and sanctions under Maryland law. Anderson v. Litzenberg, 115 Md. App. 549 (1997).

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," "in [his/her] own yard," etc.] in [City/Town], [County] County, Maryland.

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 local leash law," "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 Owner's Knowledge (Rebuttable Presumption)

Under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 3-1901(b), evidence that the dog caused personal injury creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities.

Additionally, the following evidence further establishes the owner's actual knowledge:

• Prior Bite Incidents: [Describe any known prior incidents]
• Prior Aggressive Behavior: [Describe aggressive behaviors - lunging, growling, snapping, chasing]
• Complaints to Animal Control: [County] Animal Control has received [number] complaints regarding this dog
• "Dangerous Dog" Designation: [If applicable, describe any official designation]
• Warning Signs: The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the property
• Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe admissions]

C. No Provocation - Critical for Contributory Negligence Defense

Given Maryland's contributory negligence rule, we emphasize that our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack or contribute to [his/her] injuries. 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 or provocative
• Not trespassing on private property
• [If applicable: An invited guest on the property]

The dog's attack was entirely unprovoked and without justification. There is no basis for any claim of contributory negligence.

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

• Emergency medical services were summoned
• [County] Animal Control was notified
• An incident report was prepared (Report No. [Number])
• The animal was quarantined for rabies observation per Maryland regulations
• Photographs of injuries were taken
• Witness information was obtained

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Liability Under Section 3-1901

Maryland Code Annotated, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Section 3-1901 establishes liability as follows:

"(a)(2) 'Owner' means a person who: (i) Has a right of property in a dog; (ii) Keeps or harbors a dog; (iii) Has a dog in the person's care; or (iv) Acts as a custodian of a dog."

"(b) In an action against an owner of a dog for damages for personal injury or death caused by the dog, evidence that the dog caused the personal injury or death creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known that the dog had vicious or dangerous propensities."

The facts establish:
1. [Dog Owner Name] is the "owner" under Section 3-1901(a)(2)
2. The dog caused personal injury to our client
3. The rebuttable presumption of knowledge applies
4. The owner cannot rebut this presumption given [describe evidence of prior behavior/knowledge]

B. Common Law Negligence

In addition to statutory liability, the dog owner is liable under traditional negligence principles:

1. Duty of Care

Dog owners in Maryland owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm to others.

2. Breach of Duty

[Dog Owner Name] breached this duty by:

• Failing to properly secure the animal on the property
• Allowing the animal to roam off-leash in violation of [County] Code Section [Number]
• Failing to use a muzzle despite knowledge of the dog's aggressive tendencies
• Failing to maintain adequate fencing
• Failing to adequately supervise the animal
• [Other specific breaches]

3. Negligence Per Se

The dog owner violated the following local laws, establishing negligence per se:

• [County] Code Section [Number] - Leash Law
• [County] Code Section [Number] - Dangerous Dog Ordinance
• [County] Code Section [Number] - Animal Control Regulations

C. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under Maryland law, a landlord may be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog when the landlord had knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and the authority to remove the animal. Matthews v. Amberwood Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 351 Md. 544 (1998).

[Landlord Name] is liable because:
- The landlord knew of the dog's presence and dangerous propensities
- The landlord had the authority under the lease to require removal of the animal
- The landlord failed to take action despite this knowledge

D. Defenses Inapplicable

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.

Contributory Negligence: Our client was exercising all reasonable care and bears no responsibility for this attack. Maryland's contributory negligence bar does not apply.

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

Assumption of Risk: Our client had no knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and did not voluntarily assume any risk.

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Description of Injuries

The attack caused severe and permanent 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
- Infection (including risk of rabies exposure)

Scarring and Disfigurement:
- Permanent scarring to [body parts]
- Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery

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

B. Emergency Treatment

Immediately following the attack, our client was transported to [Hospital Name] 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

C. Follow-Up Treatment

Wound Care:
- Provider: [Wound Care Specialist / Primary Care]
- Dates: [Treatment dates]
- Treatment: [Describe wound care protocol]

Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery:
- Surgeon: [Surgeon Name]
- Procedures: [Describe procedures]
- Dates: [Surgery dates]

Mental Health Treatment:
- Provider: [Therapist/Psychiatrist Name]
- Treatment: [PTSD treatment, therapy, medication]
- Duration: [Ongoing / Number of sessions]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

Physical Status:
- Permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Nerve damage resulting in [numbness / tingling / weakness]
- [Other permanent physical effects]

Psychological Status:
- PTSD symptoms triggered by dogs
- Ongoing anxiety and hypervigilance
- [Other psychological effects]

Future Treatment:
- Additional scar revision surgery anticipated
- Ongoing mental health treatment required

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering (Subject to Maryland Cap)

Physical Pain:
- Excruciating pain from the attack itself
- Pain from wound care, debridement, and suturing
- Pain from rabies vaccination series
- Ongoing pain from scarring and nerve damage

Emotional Distress:
- Terror during the attack
- PTSD symptoms disrupting daily life
- Fear of dogs limiting normal activities
- Depression related to disfigurement

Permanent Disfigurement:
- Visible, permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Impact on self-image and personal relationships

Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
- Unable to enjoy outdoor activities due to fear of dogs
- Avoidance behaviors affecting daily life

Note: Non-economic damages are subject to Maryland's statutory cap of $920,000 (2024 amount, adjusted annually).

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 3-1901, the severity and permanence 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 specials of $[Amount]
- Lost wages of $[Amount]
- Appropriate compensation for pain, suffering, and disfigurement within Maryland's damage cap
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- The strength of liability given the statutory presumption

VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES

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

Breed-Specific Exclusions:

If any breed-specific exclusion exists, we demand complete documentation. If coverage has been denied, we will pursue the dog owner personally for the full amount of damages.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Medical records and bills from all providers
• Photographs of injuries (immediately after attack and during healing)
• [County] Animal Control incident report
• Witness statements
• Employment records and wage verification
• Mental health treatment records
• HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal. Under Maryland's dog bite statute, the presumption of knowledge favors our client. There is no viable contributory negligence defense, as our client did nothing to provoke this attack.

The liability in this case is clear under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 3-1901. The damages are substantial and well-documented. We are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court for [County] County if necessary.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly and fairly. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MARYLAND-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Contributory Negligence: Maryland follows pure contributory negligence - any fault bars recovery entirely. Ensure no provocation or fault can be attributed to client.

• Statutory Presumption: Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 3-1901 creates rebuttable presumption of knowledge - significant advantage for plaintiffs.

• Non-Economic Damage Cap: Section 11-108 caps apply - currently $920,000 (2024). Verify current cap for year of injury.

• Tracey v. Solesky: The 2012 case established strict liability for pit bulls; legislature responded with Section 3-1901 which applies the presumption to all breeds.

• County-Specific Ordinances: Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore County, and Baltimore City have specific dangerous dog ordinances - verify local requirements.

• Landlord Liability: Matthews v. Amberwood establishes landlord liability with knowledge and control - investigate if applicable.

• Government Claims: If attack occurred on government property, Maryland Tort Claims Act requires notice within 1 year. Md. Code Ann., State Gov't Section 12-106.