DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

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

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

I. MISSISSIPPI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Mississippi Dog Bite Law - Common Law One-Bite Rule

Mississippi follows the common law "one-bite rule" for dog bite liability. Under this doctrine, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by their dog if the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities. Poy v. Grayson, 273 So. 2d 491 (Miss. 1973).

Under Mississippi common law, a plaintiff must establish:
1. The defendant owned or kept the dog
2. The dog had dangerous propensities
3. The owner knew or should have known of those propensities
4. The dog's dangerous propensities caused the plaintiff's injuries

B. Mississippi Statutory Provisions

While Mississippi follows the one-bite rule, two statutes are relevant:

Miss. Code Ann. Section 95-5-21 (Running at Large):

"If any person shall own or keep any dog known by him to kill or worry sheep or other domestic animals and shall not keep such dog confined to his premises, such owner or keeper shall be liable for all such damages as may be done by such dog."

Miss. Code Ann. Section 97-41-1 (Dogs at Large - Criminal):
This statute makes it unlawful for dogs to run at large and can support a negligence per se claim when violated.

C. Statute of Limitations

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 15-1-49, 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].

D. Pure Comparative Negligence

Mississippi follows a pure comparative negligence rule under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-7-15. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault. Even a plaintiff who is 99% at fault can recover 1% of damages.

Our client bears no responsibility for this attack.

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" designations by local authorities
• 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 Mississippi law. Richardson v. Sara Lee Corp., 847 So. 2d 821 (Miss. 2003).

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, Mississippi.

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 of Dangerous Propensities

THIS SECTION IS CRITICAL FOR MISSISSIPPI'S ONE-BITE RULE

The dog owner knew or should have known of this animal's dangerous propensities. Evidence of such knowledge includes:

Prior Bite Incidents:
- This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]
- [Describe details of prior incidents]
- [Names of prior victims if known]

Prior Aggressive Behavior:
- The dog has displayed aggressive behavior on multiple occasions
- Neighbors have witnessed [describe: lunging, growling, snapping, chasing, etc.]
- [Describe specific incidents with dates if known]

Complaints to Authorities:
- [Number] complaints have been filed with [County/City] Animal Control
- Report numbers: [If known]

Warning Signs:
- The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the property
- This demonstrates awareness of the animal's dangerous nature
- Whitley v. Chambliss, 189 So. 2d 659 (Miss. 1966) (warning signs as evidence of knowledge)

Owner Admissions:
- The owner has admitted [describe admissions regarding the dog's temperament]
- The owner stated [quote if available]

Breed Characteristics:
- [If applicable and known] The owner was aware this breed requires special handling

Failure to Confine:
- The owner failed to confine a known dangerous animal
- This violation supports Miss. Code Ann. Section 95-5-21 liability

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
• [Describe specific peaceful activity]

The dog's attack was entirely unprovoked and without justification.

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

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

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Common Law Scienter (One-Bite Rule)

Under Mississippi's one-bite rule, the dog owner is liable because:

1. Ownership: [Dog Owner Name] owned/kept the [Breed] dog that attacked our client.

2. Dangerous Propensities: The dog had dangerous propensities as evidenced by:
   - [List specific evidence of prior incidents/behavior]

3. Knowledge (Scienter): The owner knew or should have known of these propensities:
   - [List evidence establishing owner's knowledge]

4. Causation: The dog's dangerous propensities caused our client's injuries.

The Mississippi Supreme Court in Poy v. Grayson, 273 So. 2d 491 (Miss. 1973), confirmed that knowledge of vicious propensities is the key element in dog bite cases.

B. Negligence Theory

In addition to scienter liability, the dog owner was negligent:

1. Duty of Care

Dog owners in Mississippi owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm to others, especially when they are aware of the animal's dangerous tendencies. Gilliland v. Jumper, 29 So. 2d 139 (Miss. 1947).

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 at large in violation of local ordinances
• Failing to use a muzzle or other restraint despite knowledge of dangerous propensities
• Failing to maintain adequate fencing
• Failing to warn visitors of the dog's dangerous nature
• [Other specific breaches]

3. Negligence Per Se

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

• Miss. Code Ann. Section 97-41-1 (dogs at large)
• [City/County] Ordinance [Number] - Leash Law
• [City/County] Ordinance [Number] - Animal Control
• [Other applicable ordinances]

C. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under Mississippi 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 ability to remove the animal.

[Landlord Name] is liable because:
- The landlord knew of the dog's presence and dangerous propensities
- The landlord had control over the premises
- The landlord could have required removal of the animal under the lease

D. Defenses Inapplicable

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.

Comparative Negligence: While Mississippi follows pure comparative negligence, our client bears no fault. [He/She] was peacefully present and did nothing to contribute to this attack.

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

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: Mississippi does not cap compensatory damages in personal injury cases.

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner under Mississippi common law and applicable statutes, 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
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- The evidence establishing the owner's knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities

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/City] Animal Control incident report
• Witness statements
• Employment records and wage verification
• Mental health treatment records
• HIPAA authorizations
• Evidence of prior incidents involving this dog

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dog whose owner knew or should have known of its dangerous propensities. The evidence clearly establishes the owner's knowledge of the animal's dangerous nature, satisfying Mississippi's one-bite rule.

We are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court for [County] County if necessary. Given the strength of the evidence and Mississippi's pure comparative negligence rule, we are confident in the outcome.

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]
Mississippi Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MISSISSIPPI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• One-Bite Rule: Mississippi follows common law scienter requirement - must prove owner knew or should have known of dangerous propensities.

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-7-15 - plaintiff can recover even if more at fault than defendant.

• Evidence of Knowledge Critical: Document all evidence of prior incidents, complaints, warning signs, and owner statements.

• No Strict Liability Statute: Unlike neighboring states, Mississippi has no dog bite strict liability statute.

• Statutory Supplements: Miss. Code Ann. Sections 95-5-21 and 97-41-1 can support negligence claims when dogs run at large.

• No Compensatory Damage Caps: Mississippi does not cap compensatory (economic or non-economic) damages.

• Punitive Damages: Available for malicious or grossly negligent conduct, but capped under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-65.

• Local Ordinances: Many Mississippi cities have leash laws and dangerous dog ordinances - check local requirements.

• Venue: Actions may be brought in county where injury occurred or where defendant resides. Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-11-3.