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

Nebraska follows a hybrid approach to dog bite liability. The state has enacted the Nebraska Dog and Cat Operators Inspection Act and related dangerous dog statutes (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 et seq.), which impose strict liability for dogs previously designated as "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous." For other dogs, Nebraska applies the common law one-bite rule with ordinary negligence principles.

Key Nebraska Cases:

• Meyerson v. Hurlbut, 98 Neb. 547 (1915) - Established common law scienter rule
• Burrell v. Wolfe, 218 Neb. 408 (1984) - Applied negligence principles to animal cases
• Sellers v. Noah, 209 Neb. 387 (1981) - Discussed knowledge requirement
• Winthers v. Bertrand, 164 Neb. 98 (1957) - Foundational scienter case

B. Liability Theories in Nebraska

Theory 1: Strict Liability for Dangerous Dogs

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-617, owners of dogs previously designated as "dangerous" under § 54-617 are strictly liable for injuries caused by those dogs.

Theory 2: Scienter (One-Bite Rule)

For dogs not previously designated as dangerous, 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 3: Ordinary Negligence

The plaintiff may also recover under ordinary negligence by proving:
- The owner owed a duty of care
- The owner breached that duty
- 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 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

• Hybrid System: Nebraska uses strict liability for designated "dangerous dogs" and one-bite rule/negligence for others.
• Dangerous Dog Statute: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-617 provides for dangerous dog designations - verify if dog was previously designated.
• 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.
• 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.