Santee California Dog Bite Victim Wins Against Negligent Dog Owner

San Diego Dog Bite Injury Lawyer Mark C. Blane successfully represented a Santee/Lakeside area woman against a negligent homeowner who failed to maintain the control of deadly pit bull dog.  The dog bite victim presented to Sharp Grossmont Hospital immediately after the dog bite where she was operated by Dr. Jose Otero, M.D., plastic surgeon.  She followed up with a Medical Doctor.  The doctors said the lady will need future scar revision surgery for her dog bite.  Also, the incident was very traumatic to her due to where the dog bit her (her elbow area); for how long he was mauling her; and for the vicious breed type of the dog.  

Forensic photos of the left arm (permanent scar) were enclosed by Mr. Blane for the insurance company to review.  Mr. Blane also noted that the dog bite victim was quite self-concious of her left arm scar from the dog bite.  She avoided wearing apparel that showed the scar.  These insecurities were more profound since she is a lady and she remembered the times when she was scar free on the left arm.   Everytime she saw the dog bite scar in a mirror or when she looked down on it she was reminded of the traumatic event.  More specifically, she was also reminded on how the jaws of the dog clamped down on her and would not let go.  The dog attacked her viciously and it appeared that the dog not only wanted to bite her, but to cause grave bodily harm, and perhaps kill her as a "prey in the wild."  These thoughts were extremely traumatic for the Santee/Lakeside California dog bite victim; particularly since the dog was a large vicious breed.

Also, Mr. Blane argued that the dog bite victim's husband suffered Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED), and Loss of Consortium.  The NIED elements were met on the facts of that particular case since the husband of the dog bite victim was:

1. 1. an immediate family member (here, the husband);
2. 2. he witnessed the attack, and fended off the dog with a pitchfork;
3. 3. he reasonably appreciated the harm to his wife by seeing the attack;
4. 4. he suffered emotional distress from not only witnessing the attack, but quite possibly saving the life of his wife;

The Loss of Consortium elements are also met since the husband of the dog bite victim was:

1. 1. married to the dog bite victim;
2. 2. the injury to the dog bite victim was in an area/region which requires weight bearing, and bending and this affected not only the intimacy of their marriage but the domestic duties of the household because the dog bite victim could not perform the same  household duties as she did before the injury;
3. 3. Also the husband of the dog bite victim witnessed how the injury impacted his wife emotionally which affected her affection with him at times.