DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF MISSOURI

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

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. MISSOURI DOG BITE LAW - STRICT LIABILITY

A. Missouri's Strict Liability Statute

Missouri is a STRICT LIABILITY state for dog bite injuries. Under Missouri Revised Statutes § 273.036, a dog owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog without the need to prove negligence or prior knowledge of viciousness.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036 provides:

"1. The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation, any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner or possessor of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or possessor's knowledge of such viciousness."

Key Missouri Cases:

• Sacks v. Criss, 294 S.W.3d 502 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) - Applied strict liability under § 273.036
• Holzbauer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 883 S.W.2d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) - Pre-statute scienter case
• Pagett v. Brooks, 526 S.W.3d 186 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) - Addressed landlord liability
• Berry v. Harmon, 329 Mo. 334 (1932) - Common law scienter doctrine (superseded by statute)

B. Advantages of Strict Liability

Under Missouri'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 without provocation and plaintiff was lawfully present, owner is liable
☐ Owner AND Possessor Liability: Both owners and those in possession of the dog may be liable

C. Limited Defenses Under Missouri Law

The defendant's only defenses under § 273.036 are:

☐ Provocation: The victim provoked the attack
☐ Trespass: The victim was not lawfully on the property
☐ Comparative Fault: Victim's negligence reduces recovery proportionally

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 local ordinances
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Spoliation of evidence under Missouri law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions. Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. 1993).

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 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 273.036, our client was lawfully present:

☐ On public property (public sidewalk, park, street, etc.)
☐ On owner's private property as an invited 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 and without warning

IV. MISSOURI'S PURE COMPARATIVE FAULT

A. Comparative Fault Standard

Missouri follows pure comparative fault under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765. 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

Any assertion of comparative fault 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

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

E. No Damage Caps in Missouri Dog Bite Cases

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

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon Missouri'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 Missouri Revised Statutes § 516.120, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is five (5) years from the date of injury.

Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 5 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 Missouri's strict liability statute, the dog owner is liable for all damages caused by this unprovoked attack. Our client was lawfully present and did nothing to provoke the dog. There is no viable defense.

We are prepared to try this case before a Missouri jury if necessary. Given Missouri'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]
Missouri Bar Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MISSOURI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Strict Liability State: Missouri's § 273.036 imposes strict liability - no need to prove scienter or prior knowledge of viciousness.
• Owner AND Possessor Liability: Both owners and possessors of the dog may be held strictly liable.
• Provocation Defense: Provocation is the primary defense - document lack of provocation thoroughly.
• Pure Comparative Fault: Missouri uses pure comparative - plaintiff can recover even if more than 50% at fault.
• 5-Year SOL: Missouri has a generous 5-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
• No Damage Caps: No caps on compensatory damages in dog bite cases.
• Kansas City/St. Louis Ordinances: Research local dangerous dog ordinances in major cities for additional claims.
• Landlord Liability: Consider claims against landlords who knew of dangerous dog on property.

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