Sample Petition Regarding Dog Attack in Texas
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION
AND JURY DEMAND
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW “Plaintiffs” and file their Original Petition complaining of “Defendants” and for cause of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY PLAN
Discovery is intended to be conducted under Level 2 of TRCP, or pursuant to an Agreed Discovery Control Plan.
II.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs reside in Texarkana, Bowie County, Texas.
Defendants reside in Texarkana, Bowie County, Texas, and may be served with this Original Petition at their home address.
III.
JURIDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action because the amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
Venue properly lies in Bowie County, Texas, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 15.002(a)(1), 15.005 and 15.006 because the cause of action arose in Cass County, Texas.
IV.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Pursuant to TRCP 47, Plaintiffs allege monetary relief of more than $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their claims for relief as discovery is completed and Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages are more fully developed. Furthermore, Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek any and all damages to which the US and Texas Constitution permits, and to which common law and all applicable statutes may apply.
V.
FACTS
a. On or about ______, ____, Plaintiffs were invitees on Defendants’ property when Plaintiff ____ was attacked by multiple dogs owned, kept, possessed, and/or harbored at Defendants’ home in Texarkana, Texas 75501. Said attack occurred in or near the presence of Plaintiff’s minor daughter who was 6 years of age at the time of the attack and who heard the alarming and desperate screams from her mother while she was being attacked by multiple dogs; she then witnessed the blood and vicious wounds on her mother from the multiple dog attacks on Defendants’ property, at the hospital and at Plaintiff’s home subsequent to the attacks;
b. Defendants jointly owned, kept, possessed and/or harbored the dogs in question at their home in Texarkana, Texas.
c. Defendants’ residence in Texarkana, Texas, both prior to and at the time of event made the basis of this suit, was owned, leased and and/or possessed by Defendants and Defendants jointly controlled the premises located in Texarkana, Texas 75501 at all times relevant to this lawsuit.
d. Prior to October __, ____Defendants knew, or should have known, of the dangerous propensities of the dogs which attacked the Plaintiff in 2016.
e. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent the dogs that they jointly owned, kept and/or harbored at Defendants’ home in Texarkana, Texas from attacking and/or injuring persons such as Plaintiff ______ because Defendants knew, or should have known, of the dangerous propensities of the dogs and their vicious nature.
f. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the dogs that they jointly owned, kept and/or harbored at Defendants’ home in Texarkana, Texas 75501 from attacking and injuring persons such as the Plaintiff _______ and such breach of their duty proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs.
g. Plaintiffs further allege that the dogs owned, kept, possessed, and/or harbored at Defendants’ house were “dangerous dogs” as defined in the Dangerous Dog Act as set forth in the Tex. Health and Safety Code, Section 822.041(5) because they made an unprovoked attack on Plaintiff _____ when Defendants knew, or should have known, of the dangerous propensities of such dogs. Plaintiffs further allege that the dogs owned, kept, possessed, and/or harbored at Defendants’ house that attacked Plaintiff ______ had attacked, or attempted to attack, other persons and/or animals prior to the attack on Plaintiff ____ and based upon this behavior exhibited by the dogs prior to the attack on Plaintiff ______, Defendants knew and were fully aware the dogs were ”dangerous dogs” as defined in the Dangerous Dog Act as set forth in the Tex. Health and Safety Code, Section 822.041(5) because they had made prior, unprovoked attacks.
h. The dogs in question possessed dangerous propensities abnormal to their class which the Defendants knew, or should have known, and such abnormally dangerous propensities were the producing and/or proximate cause of the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the dogs had shown or exhibited dangerous tendencies prior to the attack on Plaintiff _____.
i. The dogs’ abnormally dangerous propensities were the proximate and/or producing cause of injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs.
j. Plaintiffs further allege that they were invitees on Defendants’ premises; Defendants owned, leased and/or possessed and controlled the premises; the dangerous propensities of the dogs in question were dangerous conditions of the premises which posed an unreasonable risk of harm; the Defendants had actual knowledge, or reasonably should have been aware of the dangerous conditions, and Defendants failed to take adequate steps or actions to make the premises safe from the known dangerous conditions and/or failed to adequately warn the Plaintiffs of the known dangerous conditions all of which was a proximate and/or producing case of the injuries and damages described herein.
k. Defendants knew, and had been warned and admonished, prior to the dogs attacking Plaintiff ______, that Defendants’ dogs in question were dangerous; Defendants’ dogs in question had chased and/or attacked and/or attempted to attack other people and other animals; Defendants’ dogs in question had jumped on other dogs; Defendants’ dogs in question regularly ran loose up and down the road; Defendants’ dogs in question were always trying to attack people; one or more of Defendants’ dogs in question had attacked a neighbor’s dog and the neighbor’s dog died; one neighbor had been to Defendants’ property at least three times asking one or more of the Defendants to keep their dogs at home because one or more of the dogs had chased his wife and attacked some of his friends; and Defendants would not keep their dangerous and vicious dogs locked up.
VI.
NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraph V, and its subparts, as if stated verbatim herein, and allege that in addition to the allegations contained in paragraph V, Defendants committed acts and/or omissions which constituted negligence, carelessness and recklessness and these acts and/or omissions additionally include, but are not limited to, the following:
- failing to pen the dogs in question;
- failing to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous propensities of the dogs in question;
- failing to take adequate steps to properly protect Plaintiff from the dangerous dogs in question; and,
- failing to take proper action in order to prevent the dogs from attacking Plaintiff.
Each of the aforementioned actions by Defendants, and those identified in paragraph V and its subparts, singularly or in combination with each other, proximately caused and/or was a producing cause of the dogs attacking Plaintiff ______ and the resulting damages to Plaintiffs. As a result of the above-described conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages.
VII.
DAMAGES
As a result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff ______ incurred damages as follows:
- Medical care expenses incurred in the past;
- Medical care expenses that, in reasonable probability, she will incur in the future;
- Loss of earning capacity she sustained in the past;
- Loss of earning capacity that, in reasonable probability, she may sustain in the future;
- Physical pain and mental anguish she sustained in the past;
- Physical pain and mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, she will sustain in the future;
- Physical impairment she sustained in the past;
- Physical impairment that, in reasonable probability, she may sustain in the future;
- Permanent scarring, and,
- Any additional damages allowed by law.
As a result of the negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff ______ incurred damages as follows:
- Mental anguish she sustained in the past;
- Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, she will sustain in the future; and,
- Any additional damages allowed by law after discovery is complete.
VIII.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs V, VI and VII of this Original Petition as if stated verbatim herein, and allege that in addition to the allegations contained in paragraphs V, VI and VII, that Defendants were aware of one or more similar incidents of violence or vicious tendencies involving the dogs in question prior to 2016, which did place, or should have placed, Defendants on notice of the dangerous propensities of the dogs in question but Defendants failed to take adequate steps or warnings necessary to protect the public, including the Plaintiffs, of the dangerous propensities of the dogs and/or the dangerous conditions of the premises due to the dangerous propensities of the dogs which would have protected the Plaintiffs from the vicious attack in ___.
The conduct of Defendants described in this Original Petition constitutes that of gross negligence and/or malice and entitles Plaintiffs to exemplary damages. The conduct of Defendants, prior to and at the time of the incident in question, was committed with malice and/or gross negligence which caused the vicious attack by the dogs in 2016, and resulting actual damages. The conduct, acts and/or omissions of Defendants, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendants, both prior to and at the time of the occurrence incident in question, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of harm to others, and of which Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of others, including the minor child, entitling the award of exemplary damages to or on behalf of the minor child.
The conduct of Defendants constitutes that of gross negligence and entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages. The conduct of Defendants prior to and at the time of the dog attacks was committed with malice, which proximately caused the dog attacks, and resulting damages. The conduct, acts and/or omissions of Defendants, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendants, at the time of and prior to the dog attacks, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of harm to others of which Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of others, including Plaintiff.
IX.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.
X.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Under TRCP 194, Plaintiffs request each Defendant disclose the information or materials described in Rule 194.2.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that Defendants answer and that on final trial, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants for a sum in excess the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court, compensatory damages, separate exemplary damages, prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest as allowed by law, and all costs of court and all other relief to which Plaintiff may show herself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Hawley Holman
Hawley Holman
Texas Bar No. 09903200
LAW OFFICE OF HAWLEY HOLMAN
Post Office Box 5367
Texarkana, TX 75505-5367
Telephone: (903) 792-4513
Telecopier: (903) 792-3762
E-Mail: hawley@hawleyholman.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS