Dismissal - Animal Attack/No Duty and Exclusivity of Worker’s Compensation April 2015
Lori A. Vanderlaan and Mathew K. Hargrave
Lori Vanderlaan and Mathew Hargrave obtained dismissal of a dog attack claim based on there being no duty owed by Defendant and separately based on the exclusivity of worker’s compensation as the remedy for Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff claimed severe injuries and over $22,000 in medical bills plus unknown amounts from future surgeries stemming from an alleged attack on Plaintiff by a dog owned by another party. Plaintiff alleged Defendant owed a duty to warn Plaintiff of the vicious propensities of the dog at issue under general negligence principals. Lori and Mathew asserted that there was no duty owed to Plaintiff by their client, and separately because Plaintiff had pled Defendant was his employer, the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation applied to bar his claims. The Court agreed with their arguments and the case was dismissed on both grounds before any discovery was conducted.