DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF WASHINGTON

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

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

I. WASHINGTON-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under RCW 4.16.080(2), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including dog bite cases, 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. Washington Strict Liability Dog Bite Statute - RCW 16.08.040

Washington is a strict liability state for dog bites. RCW 16.08.040 provides:

"The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness."

Key elements under this statute:
1. The defendant owned the dog
2. The dog bit the plaintiff
3. The bite occurred in a public place OR while plaintiff was lawfully in a private place

No proof of prior viciousness or owner knowledge is required.

C. Washington Case Law on Dog Bite Liability

Key Washington Cases:

• Arnold v. Laird, 94 Wn.2d 867, 621 P.2d 138 (1980) - Scope of strict liability statute
• Frobig v. Gordon, 124 Wn.2d 732, 881 P.2d 226 (1994) - Defenses to strict liability
• Beggs v. State, Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 171 Wn.2d 69, 247 P.3d 421 (2011) - Comparative fault in dog bite cases
• Bradacs v. Jiacobone, 244 P.3d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) - Lawfully present requirement

D. Pure Comparative Negligence

Washington follows pure comparative negligence under RCW 4.22.005. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault. Even a plaintiff who is 99% at fault may recover 1% of their damages.

Our client bears no responsibility for this attack.

E. Washington Dangerous Dog Laws

RCW 16.08.070 et seq. provides comprehensive dangerous dog regulations:

RCW 16.08.070 defines "potentially dangerous dog" and "dangerous dog"

RCW 16.08.080 - Requirements for owners of dangerous dogs:
- Proper enclosure
- Signs warning of dangerous dog
- Leash and muzzle when outside enclosure
- Liability insurance of at least $250,000

RCW 16.08.100 - Owner liability for attacks by dangerous dogs

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 "potentially dangerous dog" declarations under RCW 16.08.070
• [ ] 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)

Washington recognizes spoliation claims. Henderson v. Tyrrell, 80 Wn. App. 592 (1996). 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 packages," etc.] in [City], [County] County, Washington.

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 [City] Municipal Code," "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. Our Client Was Lawfully Present

Under RCW 16.08.040, the plaintiff must have been in a public place or lawfully in a private place. This element is clearly satisfied:

• [ ] Our client was on a public street/sidewalk
• [ ] Our client was in a public park
• [ ] Our client was an invited guest on private property
• [ ] Our client was a mail carrier performing official duties
• [ ] Our client was a delivery person with implied invitation
• [ ] Our client was a utility worker with right of access
• [ ] Our client was on their own property when the dog trespassed
• [ ] Our client was lawfully on commercial premises open to the public

C. No Provocation

While provocation may be a defense, our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack:

• [ ] Our client was not interacting with or approaching the dog
• [ ] Our client was not engaging in any threatening behavior
• [ ] Our client made no aggressive movements toward the dog
• [ ] Our client did not tease, torment, or harass the dog
• [ ] Our client did not enter the dog's enclosure
• [ ] Our client was engaged in normal, everyday activities

The attack was entirely unprovoked.

D. Evidence of Prior Dangerous Propensities (Strengthens Claim)

Although Washington's strict liability statute does not require proof of prior knowledge, such evidence strengthens the claim and supports any alternative negligence theories:

• [ ] Prior Bite Incidents: This dog has bitten [number] other people
• [ ] Prior Aggressive Behavior: This dog has displayed aggressive behavior
• [ ] Complaints to Animal Control: [Number] complaints have been filed
• [ ] "Dangerous Dog" Declaration: This dog has been declared dangerous under RCW 16.08.070
• [ ] Warning Signs: "Beware of Dog" signs were posted
• [ ] Owner Admissions: The owner has admitted [describe]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Liability Under RCW 16.08.040

Under Washington's strict liability dog bite statute, the dog owner is liable when:

1. The defendant owned the dog - [Dog Owner Name] owned the dog at all relevant times.

2. The dog bit the plaintiff - Our client was viciously attacked and bitten.

3. The plaintiff was in a public place or lawfully in a private place - Our client was [describe lawful presence].

All statutory elements are satisfied. Liability is established as a matter of law under RCW 16.08.040.

The statute explicitly states that liability exists "regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness."

B. Dangerous Dog Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF DOG WAS DECLARED DANGEROUS OR POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS]

This dog was declared a "dangerous dog" / "potentially dangerous dog" under RCW 16.08.070 on [Date]. Under RCW 16.08.100, the owner of a dangerous dog is liable for all damages from an attack, and if the owner was negligent in controlling the dog, they are liable for civil damages up to treble the actual damages.

Additionally, the owner failed to comply with RCW 16.08.080 by:
- [ ] Failing to maintain proper enclosure
- [ ] Failing to post warning signs
- [ ] Failing to leash and muzzle when outside enclosure
- [ ] Failing to maintain required $250,000 liability insurance

C. Common Law Negligence (Alternative Theory)

In addition to strict liability, [Dog Owner Name] is liable under common law negligence:

1. Duty of Care

Dog owners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm.

2. Breach of Duty

[Dog Owner Name] breached this duty by:

• [ ] Failing to properly secure the animal
• [ ] Allowing the animal to escape or roam at large
• [ ] Failing to use appropriate restraints
• [ ] Failing to maintain adequate fencing
• [ ] Failing to adequately supervise the animal
• [ ] Failing to comply with dangerous dog requirements (if applicable)

3. Causation and Damages

The breach directly caused our client's injuries and damages.

D. Negligence Per Se

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

• [ ] RCW 16.08.080 - Dangerous Dog Requirements (if applicable)
• [ ] [City] Municipal Code - Leash Law
• [ ] [City] Municipal Code - Dogs at Large
• [ ] [County] Ordinance - Animal Control
• [ ] [Other applicable ordinances]

E. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under Washington law, a landlord may be held liable when:

1. The landlord knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities
2. The landlord had authority to remove the animal
3. The landlord failed to take reasonable action

See Frobig v. Gordon, 124 Wn.2d 732 (1994).

F. 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.

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], Washington, 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

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

[Describe physical pain, emotional distress, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life]

E. Treble Damages (If Applicable)

If the dog was declared dangerous and the owner was negligent in controlling it, RCW 16.08.100 provides for treble damages.

F. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear strict liability of the dog owner under RCW 16.08.040, the severity and permanence of our client's injuries, the significant disfigurement, and the ongoing psychological trauma, 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 Washington
- Washington's strict liability statute establishing liability as a matter of law

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

Note: If this dog was declared dangerous under RCW 16.08.070, the owner was required to maintain $250,000 in liability insurance under RCW 16.08.080.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• [ ] Medical records and bills from all providers
• [ ] Photographs of injuries
• [ ] Police/Animal Control incident report
• [ ] Evidence of dangerous dog declaration (if applicable)
• [ ] Witness statements
• [ ] Employment records and wage verification
• [ ] Mental health treatment records
• [ ] HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack. Under RCW 16.08.040, the dog owner is strictly liable for the damages caused by this attack. Our client was lawfully present when attacked.

The liability in this case is established as a matter of law. We are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court for [County] County, Washington if this matter cannot be resolved.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

WASHINGTON-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• [ ] Strict Liability State: RCW 16.08.040 - No need to prove prior knowledge or viciousness.

• [ ] 3-Year Statute of Limitations: RCW 4.16.080(2).

• [ ] Pure Comparative Fault: RCW 4.22.005 - Recovery reduced by percentage of fault but never barred.

• [ ] Dangerous Dog Provisions: RCW 16.08.070 et seq. - Check if dog was declared dangerous. Creates enhanced liability and treble damages possibility.

• [ ] $250,000 Insurance Requirement: RCW 16.08.080 - Required for dangerous dog owners.

• [ ] Treble Damages: RCW 16.08.100 - Available if dangerous dog and owner negligent.

• [ ] Local Ordinances: Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, and other cities have specific leash and dangerous dog ordinances.

• [ ] Prejudgment Interest: RCW 4.56.110 - 12% from date of entry of judgment (not from injury date).

• [ ] Venue: County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. RCW 4.12.020.

• [ ] Offer of Judgment: CR 68 - Consider timing of settlement offers for cost-shifting.