DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, South Dakota ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of South Dakota
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] in [County] County, South Dakota. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.
I. SOUTH DAKOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under South Dakota Codified Laws Section 15-2-14, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three (3) years from the date of injury. This claim arises from an attack that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
B. South Dakota Dog Bite Law - Common Law One-Bite Rule
South Dakota does not have a strict liability dog bite statute. Dog bite cases in South Dakota are governed by the common law "one-bite" rule and traditional negligence principles.
Under South Dakota common law, a dog owner is liable for injuries caused by their dog if:
- The owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities; AND
- The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm
Key South Dakota Cases:
- Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 S.D. 10, 620 N.W.2d 775 (discussing scienter requirement and dangerous propensities)
- Rowland v. Log Cabin, Inc., 2003 S.D. 20, 658 N.W.2d 76 (premises liability and animal owner duties)
C. Unique South Dakota Comparative Negligence Rule
South Dakota follows a unique "slight/gross" comparative negligence standard under S.D. Codified Laws Section 20-9-2:
"Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant, but in such case, the damages shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of plaintiff's contributory negligence."
Critical: Unlike most comparative negligence states, South Dakota requires that the plaintiff's negligence must be "slight" compared to the defendant's negligence for recovery. If the plaintiff's negligence is more than "slight," recovery is completely barred.
Our client's conduct was in no way negligent.
D. South Dakota Dangerous Dog Laws
South Dakota Codified Laws Section 40-34-1 et seq. addresses vicious dogs:
- Municipalities are authorized to regulate dangerous dogs
- Dogs that have bitten or attacked may be declared dangerous
- Owners of dangerous dogs must comply with containment and insurance requirements
- Prior designation as dangerous is strong evidence of owner knowledge
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" or "vicious dog" designations
- [ ] 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 may result in adverse inferences and sanctions under South Dakota law.
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," "jogging in [Park Name]," etc.] in [City], [County] County, South Dakota.
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 ordinance," "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]."]
B. Owner's Knowledge of Dangerous Propensities (Scienter)
[CRITICAL FOR SOUTH DAKOTA - MUST ESTABLISH OWNER KNOWLEDGE]
Under South Dakota's one-bite rule, establishing the owner's prior knowledge of dangerous propensities is essential. The following evidence demonstrates that [Dog Owner Name] knew or should have known this dog was dangerous:
-
[ ] Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates]. [Provide details of prior incidents.]
-
[ ] Prior Aggressive Behavior: This dog has displayed aggressive behavior on multiple occasions, including [describe: lunging, growling, snapping, chasing, attempting to bite, etc.].
-
[ ] Complaints to Animal Control: [Number] complaints have been filed with [City/County] Animal Control regarding this dog's aggressive behavior.
-
[ ] "Dangerous Dog" Designation: This animal has been officially designated as a "dangerous dog" or "vicious dog" by [Authority], establishing actual knowledge.
-
[ ] Warning Signs: The owner posted "Beware of Dog" or similar warning signs on the property, demonstrating awareness of the animal's dangerous nature.
-
[ ] Breed Characteristics and Training: [If applicable] The owner trained or kept this dog for protection/guarding purposes, demonstrating awareness of aggressive tendencies.
-
[ ] Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe admissions regarding the dog's temperament, such as "she's bitten before," "he can be aggressive," etc.].
-
[ ] Witness Statements: Neighbors and others can attest to prior incidents and the dog's known aggressive behavior.
-
[ ] Veterinary Records: Veterinary records indicate [concerns about aggression, recommendations for behavior modification, etc.].
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
- [ ] Not interacting with or approaching the dog
- [ ] Not engaging in any behavior that could be construed as threatening or provoking
- [ ] An invited guest / lawfully on public property
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Common Law Scienter - One-Bite Rule
Under South Dakota common law, a dog owner is liable when the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities. Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 S.D. 10, 620 N.W.2d 775.
Elements:
1. The dog had dangerous propensities
2. The owner knew or should have known of those propensities
3. The dog caused injury to the plaintiff
4. The injury was proximately caused by the dangerous propensities
As detailed in Section III.B above, [Dog Owner Name] had actual and/or constructive knowledge that this dog was dangerous. The owner's knowledge is established by [summarize key evidence of knowledge].
B. Negligence Theory
In addition to the scienter claim, [Dog Owner Name] is liable under traditional negligence principles:
1. Duty of Care
Dog owners in South Dakota owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm. This includes:
- [ ] Properly confining the animal
- [ ] Using appropriate restraints when in public
- [ ] Maintaining secure fencing and enclosures
- [ ] Warning visitors of the animal's presence
- [ ] Complying with all leash laws and animal control ordinances
- [ ] Taking heightened precautions when aware of 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 in violation of [Local Ordinance]
- [ ] Failing to use a muzzle despite knowledge of aggressive tendencies
- [ ] Failing to maintain adequate fencing
- [ ] Failing to adequately supervise the animal
- [ ] Failing to warn visitors of the dog's dangerous propensities
- [ ] [Other specific breaches]
3. Causation
The breach was the actual and proximate cause of our client's injuries.
4. Damages
Our client suffered substantial damages as detailed below.
C. Negligence Per Se
The dog owner violated the following local laws, establishing negligence per se:
- [ ] [City] Municipal Ordinance - Leash Law
- [ ] [City] Municipal Ordinance - Dogs at Large
- [ ] [City] Municipal Ordinance - Dangerous Dog Requirements
- [ ] [Other applicable ordinances]
D. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)
[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]
Under South Dakota law, a landlord may be liable when:
- The landlord knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities
- The landlord had authority to remove the animal or control the premises
- The landlord failed to take reasonable action
E. Defenses Inapplicable
Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.
Trespass: Our client was lawfully present at the location of the attack.
Comparative Fault: Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no responsibility. Even under South Dakota's strict "slight/gross" standard, our client's conduct was not negligent in any degree.
Assumption of Risk: Our client had no knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities and did not voluntarily assume any risk of being attacked.
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
- [ ] Infection
- [ ] 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] in [City], South Dakota, 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
C. Follow-Up Treatment
[Detail all follow-up treatment]
D. Current Status and Prognosis
[Describe current condition and future treatment needs]
VI. DAMAGES
A. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Ambulance Service] | Emergency Transport | $[Amount] |
| [Hospital] | Emergency Department | $[Amount] |
| [Hospital] | Rabies PEP Series | $[Amount] |
| [Wound Care] | Follow-up Care | $[Amount] |
| [Plastic Surgeon] | Consultation/Surgery | $[Amount] |
| [Mental Health] | Therapy | $[Amount] |
| [Pharmacy] | Medications | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Future Scar Revision Surgery | $[Amount] |
| Continued Mental Health Treatment | $[Amount] |
| Future Medications | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lost Wages ([dates]) | $[Amount] |
| Lost PTO/Sick Time | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Pain and Suffering
[Describe physical pain, emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life]
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Permanent Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress / PTSD | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
A. Demand Amount
Based upon the demonstrated scienter of the dog owner, the severity and permanence of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, 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]
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- Comparable verdicts and settlements in South Dakota
- The strength of evidence establishing owner knowledge
VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE
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
IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- [ ] Medical records and bills from all providers
- [ ] Photographs of injuries
- [ ] Police/Animal Control incident report
- [ ] Evidence of prior incidents/complaints
- [ ] Witness statements
- [ ] Employment records and wage verification
- [ ] Mental health treatment records
- [ ] HIPAA authorizations
X. CONCLUSION
This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dog whose dangerous propensities were known to the owner. Under South Dakota common law, an owner who knows of their dog's dangerous propensities is liable for resulting injuries.
We are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court for [County] County, South Dakota if this matter cannot be resolved. The evidence of the owner's knowledge is compelling, and a jury would likely find in our client's favor.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
South Dakota State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
SOUTH DAKOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] One-Bite State: South Dakota requires proof of owner knowledge - gather extensive evidence of prior incidents and dangerous propensities.
-
[ ] Slight/Gross Comparative Negligence: S.D. Codified Laws Section 20-9-2 - plaintiff's negligence must be "slight" compared to defendant's, or recovery is barred. This is more restrictive than standard comparative negligence.
-
[ ] 3-Year Statute of Limitations: S.D. Codified Laws Section 15-2-14.
-
[ ] No Strict Liability Statute: Must prove scienter or negligence.
-
[ ] Municipal Ordinances: Check local dangerous dog and leash law ordinances - Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and other municipalities have specific requirements.
-
[ ] Evidence of Knowledge: Critical to gather: prior bite reports, animal control complaints, witness statements about aggressive behavior, veterinary records, "Beware of Dog" signs.
-
[ ] Venue: County where cause of action arose. S.D. Codified Laws Section 15-5-1.