By Anne C. Vitale
A 9-year-old girl who was attacked by a pit pull has won $200,000 in her St. Louis County case — thought to be the largest dog bite verdict in the circuit's history.
The dog escaped from the next-door neighbor's fenced backyard and bit Stephanie Pabst several times on the left leg as she played on the sidewalk.
Stephen M. Glassman, the plaintiff's attorney, said the 10-month-old dog had no history of aggressive behavior, but the lack of "dangerous propensities" was not an issue in the case — he sued for a per se violation of the Bridgeton, Mo., leash law.
"We are thankful that some municipalities have enacted broad ordinances for the protection of citizens against animal attacks, holding not merely owners, but all those persons who participate in the care, custody and housing of animals, responsible for injuries occasioned by their escape from the premises," Glassman said. 
He added that the jury responded well to evidence of the girl's resulting animal phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder.
"Notwithstanding the conservative verdict trend in St. Louis County, jurors are still receptive to claims of substantiated physical as well as psychological injury," he said.
A report on the Jan. 6 verdict in Pabst v. Geringer, et al., appears on Page 6.
Dog Bite
Stephanie lived with her parents and younger brother in the north St. Louis County suburb of Bridgeton. The Pabst family lived next door to Daniel Geringer.
Geringer, 42, permitted his unemployed friend, Terry Fowler, to temporarily move into his home in November 2001. A month later, Fowler, 47, brought his pit bull to live with him at Geringer's residence, where the dog was usually kept in a cage inside Geringer's garage. When Fowler was away from the residence, Geringer occasionally fed, walked and let the dog out.
Around 4:00 p.m. on Jan. 23, 2002, Geringer came home from work and let Fowler's pit bull out of its cage, allowing the dog to run in the backyard. About an hour later, the dog escaped through the fence.
At that time, Stephanie was on a scooter in front of her home. As she rode up the sidewalk, the pit bull attacked Stephanie from behind, biting her several times on the left knee and leg.
The dog knocked Stephanie down and locked its jaws on her knee, requiring her to tear her leg from its mouth, leaving tissue behind, as she fled into the open garage in the front of her house. Stephanie's mother called 911 and Geringer, who came over and put the dog back into his house.
Stephanie was rushed to St. John's Mercy Hospital, where her bite wounds were debrided. She spent 12 days in the hospital and underwent two subsequent operations. After discharge, her wounds developed an infection requiring a month of supervision by an infectious disease specialist and a home care nurse.
Consequently, Stephanie missed a month of school. She also developed both dog phobia and PTSD necessitating intermittent psychological counseling for about two years. She suffered nightmares and fear of any animal that bites, and withdrew from friends and family who owned dogs — even those with whom she had previously interacted.
Her parents sued Geringer and Fowler, claiming that both had violated provisions of the Bridgeton Municipal Code — which required all dogs to be leashed while off premises, and further required "dangerous animals" to be muzzled, as well as leashed, while off premises. They argued that pit bulls are aggressive, vicious animals and require proper supervision and leashing, in accordance with the municipal ordinances.
In addition, Glassman said the parents focused on how the horror of the attack disrupted Stephanie's maturation and sense of security and trust, altering her relationships and personality and requiring psychological intervention by two mental health professionals.
Glassman said they also endorsed and qualified the Bridgeton Animal Control officer as an expert witness. He said she testified regarding the vicious characteristics and behavior of pit bulls, as well as the behavior of this particular dog during quarantine — which he said "underscored the need to properly train and supervise these fighting dogs if they are to be introduced to residential neighborhoods."
In defense, Glassman said Geringer introduced evidence that Fowler pleaded guilty to a violation of the Bridgeton "animal at large" ordinance because he was the person responsible for the dog, whereas Geringer was merely a "Good Samaritan" who had allowed a friend who was "down on his luck" to temporarily move in with him.
He said the defendants further argued that Stephanie lacked any permanent impairment in her leg and that the family failed to pursue scar revision for three years since the attack. They also disputed the severity of Stephanie's psychological injuries, arguing that she had only sought therapy 15 times over a two-year period, that her phobia was cured and that her personality changes could be attributed to moving into a new neighborhood and having to adjust to a new school.
At the close of evidence, the parents dismissed Fowler, who was uninsured, since he was not home at the time of the attack and did not let the dog out, and the case was submitted against Geringer as a custodian of the dog. After a four-day trial and about three hours of deliberation, the jury returned a $200,000 verdict.
'Vicious Propensities'
"Never decline a dog bite case until you research the ordinances of the municipality in which the bite occurred," Glassman said. "This will avoid all the evidentiary problems surrounding proof of dangerous propensities."
But Glassman warned against thinking that a mere ordinance violation means a plaintiff is "home free."
"People love their dogs and think they know how they should be supervised and/or restrained, irrespective of any ordinance," he said. "Most people do not view their dogs as dangerous or believe they require a leash merely because they go for a walk, which we discovered during lengthy voir dire.
"Spend time addressing these attitudes and if possible, retain an expert to educate the jury regarding tendencies of the more aggressive breeds," he added. "The jury will be able to distinguish their own cuddly pets from the defendant's attack dog."
Plaintiffs' attorneys who have handled dog bite cases agreed that Glassman was fortunate to have been able to avoid the issue of vicious propensities.
"Any plaintiff would be wise not to proceed on an abnormally vicious propensities theory unless there is no other choice," said James Leritz of St. Louis. "In addition to the leash law violation, which would allow the plaintiff to proceed on negligence per se, there is the theory of premises liability: if the owner has reason to know that the dog may pose a danger to visitors — even if the dog is not vicious, such as where a large friendly dog likes to jump up on people — then the owner has a duty to warn or remove the hazard, just like a hole in the sidewalk."
John Lally of St. Louis acknowledged that in most dog bite cases, the injured party must establish that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous tendencies to harm people. Under those circumstances, he said, "The key to proving dangerous propensities is to find other parties who have been bitten or attacked by the animal in question. A quick search of local Animal Control records and neighbor interviews can reveal prior incidents of interest."
H. Kent Desselle of Independence added that expert witnesses can be key in dog bite litigation.
"Any dog bite case should involve an expert in dog handling that loves dogs but can attribute negligence to breed and/or handling and training," Desselle said. "Any expert that appears to be anti-dog would be a disaster.
"The key is to blame the owner/handler and not the dog, as most experts will testify that there are very few dogs which are inherently dangerous but many become that way through neglect or simply putting the wrong breeds in the wrong situation," he said. "This sells much better."
Psychological Damage
"Don't underestimate the importance of the psychological damage inflicted by the savage nature of an animal attack and its ability to disrupt a child's adjustment to her or his world," Glassman said.
He also suggested retaining a specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD. In this case, he said, their expert had previously treated Gulf War veterans and was currently treating victims of the Iraq War.
Desselle noted that a PTSD claim "would be sold on the basis of any phobia or fear which may be unwarranted in normal circumstances but understandable given past issues of injury following an attack." When presenting such a claim to the jury, he suggested asking, "What is it worth not to be able to enjoy the companionship of a dog when studies show people with pets live longer?"
Finally, Glassman recommended bolstering expert testimony regarding psychological injury with the testimony of powerful lay witnesses. "We put on the testimony of four or five mothers of Stephanie's classmates and close friends who graphically recalled her meltdowns and personality change when exposed to even friendly dogs subsequent to the pit bull attack," he said.
Lawyers Weekly, Inc., 41 West Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02111, (800) 444-5297
© 2005 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.
|
February 7, 2005
