DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF NEVADA

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

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. NEVADA DOG BITE LAW - SCIENTER / ONE-BITE RULE

A. Nevada's Legal Standard

Nevada 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 Nevada Cases:

• Hammerstein v. Jean Dev. West, 111 Nev. 1471 (1995) - Established scienter requirements in Nevada
• Tisdale v. Pagliuso, 97 Nev. 304 (1981) - Applied negligence principles
• Dopp v. Pritzl, 123 Nev. 16 (2007) - Discussed premises liability
• Torres v. State, 120 Nev. 101 (2004) - Addressed animal control issues

B. Two Theories of Liability in Nevada

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 Clark County Animal Control, Washoe County Animal Services, or other local agencies
☐ "Dangerous Dog" Designation: Official designation under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 202.500
☐ 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 Nevada law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions. Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442 (2006).

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. NEVADA'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE

A. Modified Comparative Negligence Standard

Nevada follows modified comparative negligence under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.141. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but if the plaintiff is 51% 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

Nevada 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 Nevada

Nevada 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 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 Nevada Revised Statutes § 11.190(4)(e), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two (2) years from the date of injury.

Date of Attack: [Date]
Limitations Period Expires: [Date + 2 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 Nevada jury if necessary. We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

NEVADA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• One-Bite Rule State: Nevada 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.
• Dangerous Dog Statute: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 202.500 provides for dangerous dog designations - verify if dog was previously designated.
• Modified Comparative Negligence: 51% bar rule applies - plaintiff barred if 51% or more at fault.
• 2-Year SOL: Personal injury claims must be filed within 2 years under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e).
• No Damage Caps: Nevada does not cap compensatory damages in personal injury cases.
• Local Ordinances: Research Clark County (Las Vegas), Washoe County (Reno), and 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 Nevada-licensed attorney before use.