DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, North Dakota ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of North Dakota
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. NORTH DAKOTA DOG BITE LAW - SCIENTER / ONE-BITE RULE
A. North Dakota's Legal Standard
North Dakota follows the common law "one-bite" or scienter rule for dog bite liability, supplemented by ordinary negligence principles. 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 or vicious propensities, or if the owner was otherwise negligent in controlling the dog.
Key North Dakota Cases:
- Sendelbach v. Grad, 246 N.W.2d 496 (N.D. 1976) - Established scienter requirements in North Dakota
- Olson v. Bismarck Parks & Recreation Dist., 2002 ND 61 (N.D. 2002) - Applied negligence principles
- Fischer v. City of Sioux Falls, 695 N.W.2d 436 (S.D. 2005) - Persuasive authority on premises liability
- Weber v. City of Bismarck, 1999 ND 194 (N.D. 1999) - Discussed governmental liability
B. Two Theories of Liability in North Dakota
Theory 1: Scienter (One-Bite Rule)
Under the scienter doctrine, the plaintiff must prove:
- The dog had a dangerous or vicious propensity
- The owner knew or should have known of this propensity
- The propensity caused the plaintiff's injuries
Theory 2: Ordinary Negligence
The plaintiff may also recover under ordinary negligence by proving:
- The owner owed a duty of care
- The owner breached that duty (e.g., failed to properly restrain the dog)
- The breach caused the plaintiff's injuries
- The plaintiff suffered damages
C. Establishing Owner Knowledge (Scienter)
Evidence of owner's knowledge includes:
☐ Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]
☐ Prior Aggressive Behavior: Documented history of lunging, growling, snapping, or chasing
☐ Complaints to Authorities: Prior complaints to Animal Control
☐ "Dangerous Dog" Designation: Official designation under local ordinance
☐ Warning Signs Posted: "Beware of Dog" signs demonstrating owner's knowledge
☐ Owner Admissions: Prior statements about dog's temperament
☐ Breed-Specific Knowledge: Owner awareness of breed tendencies
D. Negligence Claim
In addition to scienter, we assert the dog owner was negligent:
☐ Violation of local leash laws or ordinances
☐ Failure to properly restrain the dog
☐ Failure to warn of known danger
☐ Negligent supervision
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" or "vicious dog" designations
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures
Spoliation of evidence under North Dakota law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions.
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. Evidence of Owner's Knowledge (Scienter)
[Dog Owner Name] knew or should have known of this dog's dangerous propensities. Evidence includes:
[Detail specific evidence of prior incidents, complaints, owner knowledge, etc.]
C. Owner's Negligence
The owner breached the duty of care by:
[Detail specific acts of negligence - failure to leash, inadequate fencing, etc.]
D. No Provocation
Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was peacefully and lawfully present at the location.
IV. NORTH DAKOTA'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE
A. Modified Comparative Negligence Standard
North Dakota follows modified comparative negligence under N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, they are barred from recovery entirely.
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 approach, touch, or interact with the dog
☐ [He/She] did not engage in any provoking behavior
☐ [He/She] exercised all reasonable care
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked and without warning
Any assertion of comparative negligence would be baseless.
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
| Provider | Service | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Treatment] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Pain and Suffering
North Dakota allows recovery for:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Mental anguish
- Emotional distress
- Permanent scarring and disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
E. North Dakota Damage Cap Considerations
Under N.D. Cent. Code § 32-42-02, non-economic damages in personal injury cases are capped at $500,000. This cap applies to damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and similar non-economic losses.
F. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES (subject to $500,000 cap) | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
A. Demand Amount
Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner through both scienter and negligence, 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 N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is six (6) years from the date of injury.
Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 6 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
This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal whose owner knew of its propensities and/or was negligent in controlling it. Our client was an innocent victim who has suffered serious injuries.
We are prepared to try this case before a North Dakota jury if necessary. We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
North Dakota Bar Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
NORTH DAKOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
- One-Bite Rule State: North Dakota follows the scienter/one-bite rule - must prove owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities, OR pursue negligence theory.
- Dual Theories: Pursue both scienter and ordinary negligence claims where facts support.
- Modified Comparative Negligence: 50% bar rule applies - plaintiff barred if 50% or more at fault.
- 6-Year SOL: North Dakota has a very generous 6-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
- Non-Economic Damage Cap: N.D. Cent. Code § 32-42-02 caps non-economic damages at $500,000.
- Local Ordinances: Research Fargo, Bismarck, Grand Forks, and other municipal leash laws and dangerous dog ordinances.
- Document Prior Incidents: Critical to establish scienter - investigate thoroughly.
This template must be reviewed and customized by a North Dakota-licensed attorney before use.