DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

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

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. NEW MEXICO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. New Mexico's Dog Bite Liability Standard

New Mexico follows the common law "one-bite" rule with a scienter requirement for dog bite liability. Under New Mexico law, a dog owner may be held liable for injuries caused by their dog if the owner knew or should have known of the animal's dangerous or vicious propensities.

The New Mexico Supreme Court in Baldonado v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 2008-NMSC-005, 143 N.M. 288, articulated the standard:

"Under the common law, the owner of a domestic animal is liable for injuries caused by the animal if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class."

Key elements for establishing liability:
1. The defendant owned or harbored the dog
2. The dog had dangerous or vicious propensities
3. The owner knew or should have known of these propensities
4. The dangerous propensity caused the plaintiff's injury

B. Statute of Limitations

Under NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-8, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in New Mexico is three (3) years from the date of the injury. This claim arises from an attack that occurred on [Date of Attack], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

C. Pure Comparative Negligence

New Mexico follows a pure comparative negligence doctrine established in Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 (1981). A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault.

Our client bears absolutely no responsibility for this attack.

D. Dangerous Dog Statute

New Mexico's Dangerous Dog Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 77-1A-1 through 77-1A-6, provides a framework for identifying and regulating dangerous dogs. Under the Act:

• A "dangerous dog" is one that has inflicted serious injury on a human or has exhibited behavior that poses a reasonable threat of serious injury.
• Owners of dangerous dogs face specific requirements regarding confinement, insurance, and registration.

[If applicable: The dog in this case [has been / should be] designated as a "dangerous dog" pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 77-1A-2.]

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 under NMSA 1978, Section 77-1A-2
• 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
• Training records for the animal
• Proof of confinement measures (fencing, leash, muzzle)

Destruction of any evidence, including euthanasia of the animal without proper notice and opportunity for examination, may constitute spoliation. New Mexico courts recognize spoliation and may impose adverse inference instructions.

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 adjacent to the dog owner's property," etc.] in [City], [County] County, New Mexico.

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 local leash laws," "broke free from its leash when the owner lost control," "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 - e.g., 'the owner was able to pull the dog away,' 'bystanders intervened,' 'our client was able to escape,' etc.]."]

B. Owner's Knowledge of Dangerous Propensities (Scienter)

THIS SECTION IS CRITICAL UNDER NEW MEXICO'S ONE-BITE RULE

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

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

Prior Aggressive Behavior:
- This dog has displayed aggressive behavior on multiple occasions, including [describe: lunging, growling, snapping, chasing, menacing behavior, etc.].

Complaints to Animal Control:
- [Number] complaints have been filed with [County/City Animal Control Agency] regarding this dog.

"Dangerous Dog" Designation:
- This animal has been officially designated as a "dangerous dog" under NMSA 1978, Section 77-1A-2 by [Authority].

Warning Signs:
- The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the property, demonstrating awareness of the animal's dangerous nature.

Breed Characteristics:
- This [Breed] has known aggressive tendencies, and the owner was or should have been aware of these characteristics.

Owner Admissions:
- The owner has admitted [describe admissions regarding the dog's temperament, prior incidents, or aggressive behavior].

Witness Statements:
- Neighbors and others can attest to prior incidents or aggressive behavior involving this animal.

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
• Our client was not interacting with or approaching the dog
• Our client was not engaging in any behavior that could be construed as threatening or provocative
• The dog's attack was entirely unprovoked and without justification

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

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

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Scienter / Knowledge-Based Liability

Under New Mexico's common law, the dog owner is liable because:

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

2. Dangerous Propensities: The dog had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, as evidenced by [describe prior incidents, behavior, or characteristics].

3. Owner Knowledge: The owner knew or should have known of these dangerous propensities, as evidenced by [describe evidence of knowledge].

4. Causation: The dog's dangerous propensity was the proximate cause of our client's injuries.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has held that evidence of prior attacks or aggressive behavior is sufficient to establish the owner's knowledge of dangerous propensities. See Archibeque v. Moya, 116 N.M. 616 (Ct. App. 1993).

B. Negligence Theory

In addition to knowledge-based liability, the dog owner is liable under traditional negligence principles:

1. Duty of Care

Dog owners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm to others. This duty is heightened when the owner has knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities.

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 off-leash
- Failing to maintain adequate fencing
- Failing to use a muzzle despite knowledge of aggressive tendencies
- Failing to adequately supervise the animal
- Failing to warn visitors of the dog's dangerous propensities
- [Other specific breaches]

3. Negligence Per Se

The dog owner violated the following local ordinances, establishing negligence per se:
- [City/County] Municipal Code Section [Number] - Leash Law
- [City/County] Municipal Code Section [Number] - Running at Large Prohibition
- NMSA 1978, Section 77-1A-3 - Dangerous Dog Requirements (if applicable)
- [Other applicable ordinances]

C. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under New Mexico 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], as owner of the premises at [Address], is also liable for our client's injuries because:
- The landlord knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities
- The landlord had the authority under the lease to require removal of the animal
- The landlord permitted the dog to remain on the premises despite knowledge of the danger

D. Defenses Inapplicable

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was peacefully [describe activity] when attacked without warning.

Trespass: Our client was lawfully present at the location of the attack.

Comparative Fault: Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no responsibility for this attack. Under New Mexico's pure comparative fault system, even if some fault were attributed to our client (which we deny), recovery would only be reduced proportionally, not barred.

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
- Bone fractures
- Crush injuries
- Infection (including risk of rabies exposure)

Scarring and Disfigurement:
- Permanent scarring to [body parts]
- Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery
- Keloid formation

Psychological Injuries:
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
- Anxiety and panic attacks
- Depression
- Sleep disturbances / nightmares

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
• Diagnostic imaging (X-rays to rule out fractures)

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 - scar revision, skin grafting, etc.]
- Dates: [Surgery dates]

Infectious Disease Consultation:
- Provider: [ID Specialist Name]
- Treatment: [Rabies PEP, extended antibiotics, etc.]

Mental Health Treatment:
- Provider: [Therapist/Psychiatrist Name]
- Treatment: [PTSD treatment, EMDR, medication, etc.]
- Duration: [Ongoing / Number of sessions]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

Physical Status:
Our client has [describe current physical condition]:
- Permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Nerve damage resulting in [numbness / tingling / weakness]
- Limited range of motion in [body part]
- [Other permanent physical effects]

Psychological Status:
Our client continues to suffer from:
- PTSD symptoms triggered by [dogs, loud noises, etc.]
- Avoidance behaviors affecting daily life
- Ongoing anxiety and hypervigilance
- Nightmares and sleep disturbance

Future Treatment:
- Additional scar revision surgery anticipated
- Ongoing mental health treatment required
- [Other future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Physical Pain:
Our client has endured excruciating pain from:
- The initial attack
- Multiple wound cleanings and debridement
- Suturing procedures
- Rabies vaccination series (multiple injections)
- Surgical procedures
- Ongoing pain from scarring and nerve damage

Emotional Distress:
- Terror during the attack
- PTSD symptoms disrupting daily life
- Fear of dogs limiting normal activities
- Anxiety and hypervigilance
- Depression related to disfigurement
- Embarrassment and self-consciousness about scars

Permanent Disfigurement:
- Visible, permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Impact on self-image and confidence
- Impact on personal relationships

Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
- Unable to enjoy outdoor activities due to fear of dogs
- Avoidance of parks, neighborhoods, friends' homes with dogs
- Loss of sense of safety

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner, the severity and permanence of our client's injuries, the significant disfigurement, and the ongoing psychological trauma, 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]
- A conservative multiplier for pain, suffering, and disfigurement
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- Comparable verdicts and settlements in New Mexico for similar dog bite cases
- The strength of 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:

We are aware that some homeowner's policies contain breed-specific exclusions. If any such exclusion exists, we demand:
1. A complete copy of the policy and all endorsements
2. Written confirmation of the exclusion
3. Disclosure of whether the dog owner was informed of the exclusion

If coverage has been denied based on a breed exclusion, 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)
• Police/Animal Control incident report
• Witness statements (if available)
• Employment records and wage verification
• Documentation of prior incidents involving this dog (if obtained)
• Mental health treatment records
• HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal whose owner knew or should have known of its vicious propensities. Our client was an innocent victim who has suffered permanent physical scarring and ongoing psychological trauma.

The liability in this case is clear based on the owner's knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. The damages are substantial and well-documented. We are prepared to file suit in the District Court of [County] County, New Mexico, if necessary, and we are confident that a jury would return a verdict significantly exceeding this demand.

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]
New Mexico State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

NEW MEXICO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

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

• Evidence of Prior Incidents: Critical to establish owner's knowledge. Obtain animal control records, witness statements, and prior incident reports.

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Recovery is reduced but not barred by plaintiff's fault. Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682 (1981).

• Dangerous Dog Act: NMSA 1978, Sections 77-1A-1 to 77-1A-6 governs dangerous dog designations and owner requirements.

• Three-Year Statute of Limitations: Longer than many states - NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-8.

• Punitive Damages: Available for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. Aken v. Plains Elec. Generation & Transmission Coop., 132 N.M. 401 (2002).

• Collateral Source Rule: New Mexico follows the traditional collateral source rule - benefits from collateral sources are not deducted.

• Venue: District Court in the county where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. Rule 1-004 NMRA.