DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK
STATE OF OREGON
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Oregon ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Oregon
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. OREGON DOG BITE LAW - HYBRID SYSTEM
A. Oregon's Unique Legal Framework
Oregon employs a hybrid system for dog bite liability:
-
Strict Liability for Economic Damages: Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.360, a dog owner is strictly liable for economic damages caused by their dog.
-
Scienter Required for Non-Economic Damages: For non-economic damages (pain and suffering), the plaintiff must prove the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities OR prove negligence.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.360 provides:
"The owner of a dog is liable for economic damages to the full extent of the damage sustained when the dog causes bodily injury to a person. The injured person shall not be required to prove that the owner was negligent in order to recover economic damages under this subsection."
Key Oregon Cases:
- Westberry v. Blackwell, 282 Or. 129 (1978) - Established common law scienter rule for non-economic damages
- Beaulieu v. Florendo, 184 Or. App. 183 (2002) - Applied dual liability system
- Musgrave v. Studebaker, 194 Or. App. 430 (2004) - Discussed keeper liability
- Sheets v. Ritt, Ritt & Ritt, Inc., 174 Or. App. 354 (2001) - Addressed premises liability
B. Two Categories of Damages in Oregon
Category 1: Economic Damages (Strict Liability)
Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.360, the owner is strictly liable for:
- Medical expenses (past and future)
- Lost wages (past and future)
- Property damage
- Other out-of-pocket expenses
Category 2: Non-Economic Damages (Scienter/Negligence Required)
For pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other non-economic damages, plaintiff must prove:
- The dog had a dangerous or vicious propensity AND
- The owner knew or should have known of this propensity
- OR the owner was negligent in controlling the dog
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 local ordinance
☐ 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. Alternative Negligence Theory
The owner was also negligent in:
☐ Violating local leash laws or ordinances
☐ Failing to properly restrain the dog
☐ Failing 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" 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 Oregon law may result in adverse inferences and sanctions. Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (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. 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. OREGON'S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE
A. Modified Comparative Negligence Standard
Oregon follows modified comparative negligence under Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.600. 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. Economic Damages (Strict Liability Applies)
Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses
| Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Treatment] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
B. Non-Economic Damages (Scienter/Negligence Required)
Oregon allows recovery for:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Mental anguish
- Emotional distress
- Permanent scarring and disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
C. Oregon Non-Economic Damage Cap
Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.710, non-economic damages are generally capped at $500,000. Note: This cap has been subject to constitutional challenges. Verify current status.
D. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES (subject to cap) | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
A. Demand Amount
Based upon Oregon's strict liability statute for economic damages, the owner's scienter/negligence for non-economic damages, 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 Oregon Revised Statutes § 12.110, 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. Under Oregon's statutory framework, the owner is strictly liable for all economic damages. Based on the owner's knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and/or the owner's negligence, the owner is also liable for non-economic damages.
We are prepared to try this case before an Oregon jury if necessary. We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Oregon State Bar Number [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
OREGON-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
- Hybrid System: Oregon uses strict liability for economic damages only; non-economic requires scienter or negligence.
- Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.360: Key statute for strict liability on economic damages.
- Document Scienter: Critical for non-economic damages - thoroughly investigate prior incidents.
- 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 Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110.
- Non-Economic Damage Cap: Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.710 caps at $500,000 - verify current constitutional status.
- Local Ordinances: Research Portland, Eugene, Salem, and other municipal dangerous dog ordinances.
- Dual Claims: Always pursue both strict liability (economic) and scienter/negligence (non-economic) claims.
This template must be reviewed and customized by an Oregon-licensed attorney before use.