DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

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

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 [City/County], Virginia. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. VIRGINIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Virginia Code Section 8.01-243(A), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bite cases, is two (2) 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. Virginia Dog Bite Law - Common Law "One-Bite" Rule

Virginia follows the common law "one-bite" rule. Virginia does not have a strict liability dog bite statute. Dog bite liability is governed by the scienter doctrine established in Stacy v. Krum, 107 Va. 635, 59 S.E. 1092 (1907).

Under Virginia law, a dog owner is liable when:

1. The dog had a dangerous or vicious propensity; AND
2. The owner knew or had reason to know of the dog's dangerous propensity; AND
3. The dangerous propensity was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Key Virginia Cases:

• Stacy v. Krum, 107 Va. 635, 59 S.E. 1092 (1907) - Established scienter requirement
• Pence v. Murphy, 47 Va. Cir. 418 (1998) - Knowledge through prior incidents
• Twigg v. Roanoke Cnty., 78 Va. Cir. 180 (2009) - Dangerous dog proceedings and owner knowledge
• Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69, 606 S.E.2d 819 (2005) - Application of scienter rule

C. CRITICAL: Virginia's Pure Contributory Negligence Rule

Virginia is one of only four states (plus D.C.) that follows pure contributory negligence. Under Va. Code Section 8.01-34, if the plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their own injuries, they are completely barred from recovery.

This is absolutely critical in Virginia dog bite cases. The defense will scrutinize every aspect of the plaintiff's conduct. Our client:

• Did nothing to contribute to this attack
• Exercised all reasonable care for their own safety
• Did not provoke, tease, or interact with the dog
• Was lawfully present at the location
• Had no reason to anticipate the attack

D. Virginia Dangerous Dog Laws

Virginia Code Sections 3.2-6540 through 3.2-6545 address dangerous dogs:

Va. Code Section 3.2-6540 defines "dangerous dog":

"A dog that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat."

Va. Code Section 3.2-6540.1 - Registration and containment requirements for dangerous dogs

Va. Code Section 3.2-6544 - Penalties for violation of dangerous dog provisions

Prior dangerous dog adjudication is powerful 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" adjudications under Va. Code Section 3.2-6540
• [ ] 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)

Virginia recognizes claims for spoliation of evidence. Boyd v. Traveler's Ins. Co., 166 Va. 172, 183 S.E. 542 (1936). Destruction of any evidence may result in adverse inferences and sanctions.

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]," "delivering mail as a postal worker," etc.] in [City/County], Virginia.

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 VIRGINIA - MUST ESTABLISH OWNER KNOWLEDGE]

Under Virginia's one-bite rule as established in Stacy v. Krum, establishing the owner's prior knowledge of dangerous propensities is essential. The following evidence demonstrates that [Dog Owner Name] knew or had reason to know 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.].

• [ ] Dangerous Dog Adjudication: This dog has been adjudicated a "dangerous dog" under Va. Code Section 3.2-6540, which establishes actual knowledge as a matter of law.

• [ ] Complaints to Animal Control: [Number] complaints have been filed with [City/County] Animal Control regarding this dog's aggressive behavior.

• [ ] Warning Signs: The owner posted "Beware of Dog" or similar warning signs on the property, demonstrating awareness of the animal's dangerous nature.

• [ ] Breed and Training for Protection: [If applicable] The owner acquired/trained this dog for protection or guarding purposes, demonstrating knowledge of aggressive tendencies.

• [ ] Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe admissions regarding the dog's temperament].

• [ ] Witness Statements: Neighbors, mail carriers, delivery personnel, and others can attest to prior incidents and the dog's known aggressive behavior.

• [ ] Veterinary Records: Veterinary records note [concerns about aggression, recommendations for behavior modification, etc.].

C. No Contributory Negligence

[CRITICAL FOR VIRGINIA - MUST ESTABLISH ABSENCE OF ANY FAULT]

Given Virginia's pure contributory negligence rule, we must establish that our client was entirely free from fault:

• [ ] Our client was peacefully and lawfully present at the location
• [ ] Our client did not interact with, approach, or acknowledge the dog prior to the attack
• [ ] Our client did not provoke, tease, torment, or harass the dog in any way
• [ ] Our client did not enter any area where the dog was confined or restrained
• [ ] Our client was not engaged in any conduct that could be construed as threatening
• [ ] Our client had no prior knowledge of this dog's existence or propensities
• [ ] Our client was exercising reasonable care for their own safety
• [ ] Our client was engaged in normal, everyday activities
• [ ] The attack occurred suddenly and without warning

Our client bore absolutely no responsibility for this attack.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Common Law Scienter - One-Bite Rule

Under Virginia common law as established in Stacy v. Krum, 107 Va. 635 (1907), a dog owner is liable when:

1. The dog had a dangerous or vicious propensity - This dog had a propensity to attack humans, as evidenced by [describe evidence].

2. The owner knew or had reason to know of the propensity - [Dog Owner Name] had actual and/or constructive knowledge that this dog was dangerous. Evidence includes: [summarize key evidence].

3. The dangerous propensity was the proximate cause of injury - The dog's dangerous propensity to attack was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries.

B. Dangerous Dog Adjudication

[USE IF DOG WAS PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED DANGEROUS]

This dog was previously adjudicated a "dangerous dog" under Va. Code Section 3.2-6540 on [Date] by [Authority]. This adjudication:

1. Establishes as a matter of law that the dog had dangerous propensities
2. Establishes as a matter of law that the owner had knowledge of those propensities
3. Creates additional liability for violation of dangerous dog requirements

C. Negligence Theory

In addition to scienter liability, [Dog Owner Name] is liable under traditional negligence principles:

1. Duty of Care

Dog owners in Virginia owe a duty of ordinary care to prevent their animals from causing foreseeable injuries. Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 (2005).

2. Breach of Duty

[Dog Owner Name] breached this duty by:

• [ ] Failing to properly secure the animal on the property
• [ ] Allowing the animal to escape or roam at large
• [ ] Failing to use appropriate restraints in public
• [ ] Failing to maintain adequate fencing
• [ ] Failing to adequately supervise the animal
• [ ] Failing to warn visitors of the dog's dangerous propensities
• [ ] Failing to comply with dangerous dog requirements (if applicable)
• [ ] [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.

D. Negligence Per Se

The dog owner violated the following laws, establishing negligence per se:

• [ ] Va. Code Section 3.2-6538 - Dogs running at large unlawful
• [ ] Va. Code Section 3.2-6540 through 3.2-6545 - Dangerous Dog Requirements
• [ ] [City/County] Ordinance - Leash Law
• [ ] [City/County] Ordinance - Dogs at Large
• [ ] [Other applicable ordinances]

E. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under Virginia law, a landlord may be liable for a tenant's dog attack when:

1. The landlord knew or had reason to know of the dog's dangerous propensities
2. The landlord had the right to require removal of the animal
3. The landlord failed to take reasonable action

F. Defenses Inapplicable

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack.

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

Contributory Negligence: Our client exercised all reasonable care and was completely free from fault. There is no evidence that any conduct by our client contributed in any way to this attack.

Assumption of Risk: Our client had no knowledge of this dog's dangerous propensities and did not voluntarily assume any risk.

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
- [ ] 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], Virginia, 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 including wound care, plastic surgery, infectious disease consultation, and mental health treatment]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current physical and psychological condition and future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Physical Pain:
[Describe the physical pain endured from the attack, treatment, and ongoing effects]

Emotional Distress:
[Describe PTSD, anxiety, fear of dogs, depression, and impact on daily life]

Permanent Disfigurement:
[Describe visible scarring and its impact on self-image and quality of life]

Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
[Describe how injuries have impacted client's ability to enjoy normal activities]

E. Punitive Damages Considerations

Virginia permits punitive damages where the defendant's conduct demonstrates willful and wanton negligence, or conscious disregard for the safety of others. Booth v. Robertson, 236 Va. 269 (1988). Evidence supporting punitive damages includes:

• [ ] Actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities coupled with failure to act
• [ ] Prior bite incidents that were ignored
• [ ] Violation of dangerous dog requirements after adjudication
• [ ] Intentional concealment of prior incidents

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the demonstrated scienter of the dog owner, the complete absence of any contributory negligence by our client, 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 Virginia
- The strength of evidence establishing owner knowledge under Stacy v. Krum
- The complete absence of any contributory negligence

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 (immediately after attack and during healing)
• [ ] Police/Animal Control incident report
• [ ] Evidence of prior incidents and complaints
• [ ] Dangerous dog adjudication records (if applicable)
• [ ] 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 Virginia common law as established in Stacy v. Krum, an owner who knows of their dog's dangerous propensities is liable for resulting injuries.

Our client was completely free from any fault. There is no basis for any contributory negligence defense.

We are prepared to file suit in the Circuit Court for [City/County], Virginia if this matter cannot be resolved. The evidence of the owner's knowledge is compelling, and a Virginia jury would likely return a verdict significantly exceeding this demand.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Virginia State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

VIRGINIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• [ ] One-Bite State: Virginia requires proof of owner knowledge under Stacy v. Krum, 107 Va. 635 (1907). Extensive evidence gathering of prior incidents is essential.

• [ ] PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: Virginia is one of only 4 states with pure contributory negligence. ANY fault by plaintiff completely bars recovery. Thoroughly document absence of fault.

• [ ] 2-Year Statute of Limitations: Va. Code Section 8.01-243(A).

• [ ] Dangerous Dog Statute: Va. Code Sections 3.2-6540 through 3.2-6545 - Check if dog has been adjudicated dangerous. Creates powerful evidence of knowledge.

• [ ] Local Ordinances: Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Richmond, Norfolk, and other localities have specific leash and dangerous dog ordinances.

• [ ] No Collateral Source Rule for Medical Bills: Va. Code Section 8.01-413 - Consider impact on presenting medical expenses.

• [ ] Punitive Damages: Available for willful and wanton conduct. Must prove by clear and convincing evidence. Booth v. Robertson, 236 Va. 269 (1988).

• [ ] Prejudgment Interest: Available from date of judgment. Va. Code Section 8.01-382.

• [ ] Venue: City or county where cause of action arose, or where any defendant resides. Va. Code Section 8.01-262.