Source: http://www.haverlylaw.com/Personal-Injury/Personal-Injury_PC/Animal-Bites-3-Personal-Injury_PC.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:39:07+00:00

Document:
If you have lost a family member or suffered injuries as a result of another person's negligence or misconduct, you could be legally entitled to compensation for your loss. To learn more about your right to damages, contact our firm to schedule a consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney for straightforward solutions that will work for you.
Thank you for contacting Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law. Your message has been sent.
Although animal-attack claims most commonly involve dog bites, many other types of domesticated animals, such as cats, ferrets, rats, snakes and even birds, can also bite humans. Non-domesticated animals, such as large cats or monkeys and apes ordinarily found in the wild (owned by some people as pets or held in private animal refuges) have been known to attack children and adults as well. An animal owner's liability for injuries caused by his or her pet, if any, will vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A lawyer from Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law in Wilmington, DE, who is experienced in dog bite and personal injury law is an excellent source for advice and information in animal attack case.
To succeed in most animal attack cases, the injured person must prove that the animal causing the injury was owned and kept by the defendant. In some jurisdictions, the injured person was also required to show that the owner knew or should have known that his or her animal was dangerous, mischievous, vicious or prone to such threatening behaviors. Under current laws in many areas, however, when it is proven that an owner was somehow negligent (such as by not properly restraining or containing the animal), the injured person can often recover damages without proving the animal's viciousness.
An owner of an animal may be found liable under any circumstances in which he or she had knowledge of the animal's viciousness but failed to act in order to prevent injuries to others. Accordingly, if an animal exhibits vicious or uncontrollable behavior, the owner should take steps to shield the public from the animal. For example, if an individual owns a dog that is known to attack and bite without provocation, the owner should probably keep the dog safely confined indoors and, while outside, in a yard from which it cannot escape and that others cannot easily enter. If an owner does not adhere to these common-sense guidelines and the animal does attack, he or she may be found liable for the resulting injuries.
Those who keep animals generally considered wild, including lions, wolves, bears, alligators, crocodiles, tigers, and monkeys, are typically liable for injuries caused by such animals regardless of whether the particular animal is known to be dangerous. Because these animals are generally presumed to have a natural tendency to revert to their wild instincts no matter how well trained or domesticated, their owners are often held "strictly liable" for any injuries they may cause. However, strict liability might not apply if the animal injures someone while it is confined or restrained on its owner's property, but this is a factually dependent argument that will not apply in every case.
In some states, it is not always necessary for the animal to actually bite or attack the victim to hold the owner liable for an injury. For example, a pedestrian who breaks his or her ankle in a frightened attempt to get away from a fenced-in dog's snapping, barking, or other aggressive behavior, may nonetheless be able to sue the dog's owner successfully if he or she can show that the actions of the dog led to the injury.
People who are injured in animal attacks are not always entitled to recover damages. If the injured person provoked the animal, for instance, recovery may be denied. Similarly, if a pet owner informs his or her neighbor that his or her pet parrot is not friendly and should not be touched, but the neighbor does not heed this warning, pokes the bird and is thereafter pecked or bitten, recovery may be denied. If the owner merely stated that the parrot was not always friendly, on the other hand, but still encouraged the neighbor to pet it, the owner could likely be liable.
People who are injured by an animal while on the owner's property unlawfully are generally unable to recover since they were trespassing at the time of the attack. In many states, in order to successfully bring suit under a dog bite statute, the injured person must show that he or she was lawfully in the place where the injury occurred. If the injured person was a trespasser at the time of the attack, the animal's owner may not be liable for injuries caused by his or her animal. If, for example, someone jumps over a fence into an enclosed yard with "Beware of Dog" warnings posted, and taunts a guard dog with a stick, the owner may not be liable if the dog then bites the trespasser.
Persons injured by biting or attacking animals should seek the counsel of a personal injury lawyer who can explain the complexities of their case and provide guidance through the legal system. If you or someone you know has suffered personal injuries as a result of an animal attack, an experienced and knowledgeable personal injury lawyer at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law in Wilmington, DE, can advise you on whether you may have a claim against the animal's owner and can help you pursue the maximum damages to which you are entitled.
Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, represents clients in Wilmington and throughout Delaware areas such as: Dover, Georgetown, Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Centreville, Greenville, Bear, Newark, Hockessin, Claymont, New Castle County, Kent County and Sussex County. We also serve as local counsel for out-of-state clients.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.