DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

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

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. OKLAHOMA DOG BITE LAW - STRICT LIABILITY

A. Oklahoma's Strict Liability Statute

Oklahoma is a STRICT LIABILITY state for dog bite injuries. Under 4 Okla. Stat. § 42.1, a dog owner is strictly liable for injuries caused by their dog without the need to prove negligence or prior knowledge of viciousness.

4 Okla. Stat. § 42.1 provides:

"The owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be."

Key Oklahoma Cases:

• Pletcher v. Goetz, 1971 OK 107 (Okla. 1971) - Applied strict liability standard
• Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) - Persuasive authority on strict liability
• Shrum v. Dalton, 2014 OK CIV APP 1 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) - Applied provocation defense
• Dowler v. State, 2011 OK CIV APP 116 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) - Addressed landlord liability

B. Advantages of Strict Liability

Under Oklahoma's strict liability framework:

☐ No Scienter Required: Plaintiff need NOT prove owner knew of dog's dangerous propensities
☐ No Prior Bite Needed: Liability attaches even for first-time incidents
☐ Automatic Liability: If dog bit/injured plaintiff without provocation and plaintiff was lawfully present, owner is liable
☐ Full Damages: Statute provides for recovery of "full amount of any damages sustained"

C. Statutory Requirements and Defenses

Under 4 Okla. Stat. § 42.1:

Requirements for Recovery:
- Dog bit or injured the plaintiff
- Attack was without provocation
- Plaintiff was in a place where they had a lawful right to be

Defenses:
☐ Provocation: The victim provoked the attack
☐ Unlawful Presence: The victim was not lawfully present at the location

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 "potentially dangerous dog" designations under 4 Okla. Stat. § 42.2
☐ Communications with animal control
☐ Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
☐ Training records for the animal
☐ Proof of confinement measures

Spoliation of evidence under Oklahoma law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions. Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100 (Okla. 2008).

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. Lawful Presence

Under 4 Okla. Stat. § 42.1, our client had a lawful right to be where the attack occurred:

☐ Public property (public sidewalk, park, street, etc.)
☐ Owner's private property as an invited guest
☐ Owner's property performing legal duty (mail carrier, utility worker, etc.)
☐ Owner's property as a business invitee

C. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack:

☐ [He/She] did not touch, pet, or interact with the dog
☐ [He/She] did not make sudden movements toward the dog
☐ [He/She] did not tease, torment, or abuse the dog
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked and without warning

IV. OKLAHOMA'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE

A. Modified Comparative Negligence Standard

Oklahoma follows modified comparative negligence under 23 Okla. Stat. § 13. 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 provoke the dog in any way
☐ [He/She] exercised all reasonable care
☐ [He/She] did not approach or interact with the dog
☐ The attack was entirely unprovoked

Any assertion of comparative negligence would be without merit.

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

Oklahoma 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 Oklahoma

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

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon Oklahoma's strict liability statute, 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 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(3), 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

Under Oklahoma's strict liability statute, the dog owner is liable for the full amount of all damages caused by this unprovoked attack. Our client was lawfully present at the location and did nothing to provoke the dog. There is no viable defense.

We are prepared to try this case before an Oklahoma jury if necessary. Given Oklahoma's favorable strict liability framework, liability is not in dispute.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Oklahoma Bar Association Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Strict Liability State: Oklahoma's 4 Okla. Stat. § 42.1 imposes strict liability - no need to prove scienter or prior knowledge of viciousness.
• Provocation Defense: Provocation is the primary defense - document lack of provocation thoroughly.
• Lawful Presence Required: Plaintiff must have had "lawful right to be" where attack occurred.
• Dangerous Dog Statute: 4 Okla. Stat. § 42.2 et seq. provides for dangerous/potentially dangerous dog designations.
• 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 12 Okla. Stat. § 95(A)(3).
• No Damage Caps: Oklahoma does not cap compensatory damages in personal injury cases.
• Local Ordinances: Research Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and other municipal dangerous dog and leash ordinances.

This template must be reviewed and customized by an Oklahoma-licensed attorney before use.