Dog Bite Demand Letter - Nebraska

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF NEBRASKA

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

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. NEBRASKA DOG BITE LAW

A. Nebraska's Legal Framework — Statutory Strict Liability

Nebraska imposes statutory strict liability on dog owners. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1), "the owner or owners of any dog or dogs shall be liable for any and all damages that may accrue (a) to any person, other than a trespasser, by reason of having been bitten by any such dog or dogs and (b) to any person, firm, or corporation by reason of such dog or dogs killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing any person or persons or any sheep or other domestic animals..."

This is true strict liability: the injured person need not prove that the dog had bitten before, that it had vicious propensities, that the owner knew of any propensity (scienter), or that the owner was negligent. Section 54-601 has been applied a number of times... and has been found to make an owner strictly liable for injuries inflicted by his dog without any proof that the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities. Holden v. Schwer, 242 Neb. 389, 495 N.W.2d 269 (1993); see also Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791, 277 N.W.2d 233 (1979) ("§ 54-601... creates a cause of action based upon strict liability on the part of a dog owner").

The statutory exceptions (Owner's only defenses):

• Trespassers. The statute's strict liability does not run to a person who was a trespasser at the time of the bite. A trespasser is not left remediless, however, and may still pursue the common-law remedy for a dog with known vicious propensities (scienter). Guzman v. Barth, 250 Neb. 763, 552 N.W.2d 299 (1996).
• Provocation. An injured person is barred if he/she intentionally provoked the dog (teasing, tormenting, or abusing it) and thereby caused the attack. Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791, 277 N.W.2d 233 (1979).
• Police/military dogs. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(2) exempts a governmental agency's proper use of a police or military dog under a written-policy in the circumstances specified there.

A keeper may also be liable to injured third parties on an ordinary negligence theory, in addition to § 54-601 strict liability. Van Kleek v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 289 Neb. 730, 857 N.W.2d 297 (2014).

Key Nebraska Cases (verified):

• Holden v. Schwer, 242 Neb. 389, 495 N.W.2d 269 (1993) - § 54-601 makes owner strictly liable without proof of dangerous propensities
• Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791, 277 N.W.2d 233 (1979) - § 54-601 creates a strict-liability cause of action; intentional provocation bars recovery
• Guzman v. Barth, 250 Neb. 763, 552 N.W.2d 299 (1996) - trespasser exclusion does not cut off the trespasser's common-law scienter remedy
• Van Kleek v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 289 Neb. 730, 857 N.W.2d 297 (2014) - keeper may also be liable on a negligence theory
• State v. Ruisi, 9 Neb. App. 435, 616 N.W.2d 19 (2000) - § 54-601 is a strict-liability civil dog-bite statute

B. Liability Theories in Nebraska

Theory 1 (PRIMARY): Statutory Strict Liability — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601

This is the controlling theory in the ordinary case. Because our client was a non-trespasser bitten by the owner's dog, the owner is strictly liable for all resulting damages. The claimant need prove only:

• Ownership — the defendant owned (or, for negligence, kept) the dog;
• Causation — the dog bit/injured the claimant; and
• Damages — the claimant suffered injury.

No proof of prior bites, vicious propensity, scienter, or owner negligence is required. The dog need NOT have been previously declared "dangerous." (The separate dangerous-dog registration scheme at Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 54-617 to 54-624 imposes regulatory/confinement duties and criminal penalties and can supply aggravating facts, but it is not the source of civil strict liability — that is § 54-601.)

Theory 2 (fallback — trespassers only): Common-Law Scienter / One-Bite

If (and only if) the owner establishes that the claimant was a trespasser at the time of the bite, § 54-601 strict liability does not apply, and the claimant proceeds on the common-law scienter theory (dog had a dangerous/vicious propensity; owner knew or should have known; propensity caused the injury). Guzman v. Barth, 250 Neb. 763, 552 N.W.2d 299 (1996).

Theory 3 (additional): Ordinary Negligence

In addition to strict liability, a keeper may be liable on ordinary negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages). Van Kleek v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 289 Neb. 730, 857 N.W.2d 297 (2014).

C. Establishing Owner Knowledge (Scienter) — Only If Trespass Is Asserted

Note: Under § 54-601 strict liability, our client need NOT prove the owner's knowledge of any dangerous propensity. The following evidence is relevant only if the owner contends our client was a trespasser (shifting the claim to the common-law scienter theory), or to rebut a provocation defense, or to support a negligence theory and aggravate damages:

☐ 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 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-617
☐ 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

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 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-617
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Spoliation of evidence under Nebraska 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, violation of local ordinances, etc.]

D. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was peacefully and lawfully present at the location.

IV. NEBRASKA'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE

A. Modified Comparative Negligence Standard

Nebraska follows modified comparative negligence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09. 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

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Nebraska 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 Nebraska

Nebraska does not impose statutory caps on compensatory damages in personal injury cases.

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon 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 Nebraska Revised Statutes § 25-207, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is four (4) years from the date of injury.

Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 4 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 Nebraska jury if necessary. We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

NEBRASKA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Statutory Strict Liability (§ 54-601): Nebraska is a STRICT-LIABILITY dog-bite state. For any non-trespasser bitten, the owner is liable for all damages without proof of prior bites, vicious propensity, scienter, or negligence (Holden v. Schwer, 242 Neb. 389 (1993)). Do NOT under-plead the claim as a "one-bite"/scienter case — that is the common-law fallback that applies only if the client was a trespasser (Guzman v. Barth, 250 Neb. 763 (1996)).
• Owner's defenses are limited: trespass (shifts to common-law scienter), intentional provocation (Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791 (1979)), and the § 54-601(2) police/military-dog exemption.
• Dangerous Dog Registry is separate: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 54-617 to 54-624 govern "dangerous dog" registration/confinement and criminal penalties; a designation supplies aggravating facts but is NOT a prerequisite to civil strict liability (which flows from § 54-601).
• Add-on negligence: A keeper may also be liable in ordinary negligence (Van Kleek v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 289 Neb. 730 (2014)).
• Modified Comparative Negligence: 50% bar rule applies - plaintiff barred if 50% or more at fault.
• 4-Year SOL: Nebraska has a generous 4-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
• No Damage Caps: Nebraska does not cap compensatory damages in personal injury cases.
• Local Ordinances: Research Omaha, Lincoln, and other municipal dangerous dog and leash ordinances.
• Document Prior Incidents: Critical to establish scienter - investigate thoroughly.

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