Dyer, Indiana Dog Bite Lawyer – Vicious Animal Attack

Dog Bite Laws in the Town of Dyer

An unprovoked bite by a dog or cat does not necessarily mean that the dog or cat is dangerous or vicious. In the United States, all dogs and house cats, regardless of breed or size, are presumed to be harmless domestic animals. This presumption can be overcome with proof of a dangerous propensity as demonstrated by specific conduct of that particular animal. A dangerous propensity is the tendency of an animal to act to endanger the safety of people or other animals. Depending on the facts of a dog or cat bite case, that dog’s or cat’s biting of a person can be used as evidence of that animal’s viciousness.

Town of Dyer defines “abandon” as the act of leaving a companion animal, domestic animal, or exotic animal: (1) Without food, water or care for 24 hours or more; or (2) In a situation where conditions present an immediate, direct and serious threat to the life, safety, or health of the animal.

Town of Dyer defines an “owner” as any person, partnership, or corporation owning, keeping, or harboring one or more animals. An animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or sheltered for three consecutive days or more.

Town of Dyer defines a “public nuisance animal” as any animal or animals that unreasonably annoy humans, endanger the life or health of other animals or persons, or substantially interfere with the rights of citizens, other than their owners, to their enjoyment of life or property. The term “public nuisance animal” shall mean and include, but is not limited to, any animal that:

1. Is repeatedly found at large
2. Damages the property of anyone other than its owner
3. Molests or intimidates pedestrians or passersby
4. Chases vehicles
5. Excessively makes disturbing noises, including, but not limited to, continued and repeated howling, barking, whining, or other utterances causing unreasonable annoyance, disturbance, or discomfort to neighbors or others in close proximity to the premises where the animal is kept or harbored
6. Causes fouling of the air by odor thereby creating an unreasonable annoyance or discomfort to neighbors or others in close proximity to the premises where the animal is kept or harbored
7. Causes unsanitary conditions in enclosures or surroundings where the animal is kept or harbored
8. Is offensive or dangerous to the public health, safety, or welfare by virtue of the number and/or types of animals maintained
9. Attacks other domestic animals or pursues them in a threatening manner
10. Has been found by the Bi-Town Animal Control Board, after notice to its owner and a hearing, to be a public nuisance animal by virtue of being a menace to the public health, welfare, and/or safety.

Consult an experienced dog bite lawyer in Dyer, Indiana, to navigate the specifics of your case and understand how these laws may apply to your situation. As a firm based in Dyer, Gladish Law Group has a deep understanding of the local community and its unique dynamics. This local insight allows us to navigate the legal landscape more effectively and build strong cases that resonate with local judges and juries.

Town of Dyer defines a “restraint” as any animal secured by a leash, fence or lead under the control of a responsible person and obedient to that person’s commands, or contained within the real property limits of its owner.

Town of Dyer defines “running at large” and states that it shall be unlawful for any person having charge, care, ownership or control of any animal to let the animal run at large and beyond the limits of his or her lot or other real property. All animals which are found unlawfully running at large within the Town may be taken into custody and impounded at the animal shelter.

Town of Dyer defines a “vicious animal” as any animal that attacks, bites, or injures human beings or domesticated animals without adequate provocation, or which, because of temperament, conditioning or training, has a known propensity to attack, bite, or injure human beings or domesticated animals.

Town of Dyer Ordinance Section 6-80 requires a “restraint” as follows:

• All dogs shall be kept under restraint.
• All cats shall be kept under restraint.
• No owner shall fail to exercise proper care and control of his or her animals to prevent them from becoming a public nuisance.
• Every female dog or cat in heat shall be confined in a building or secure enclosure in such a manner that such female dog or cat cannot come into contact with another animal except for planned breeding.
• No person shall allow an animal to ride in an enclosed area of a motor vehicle, both motor or pedal, including open bed cars and trucks, unless the animal is confined by a securely affixed, well-ventilated container, cage or other device designated to safely prevent the animal from falling or jumping from the vehicle.
• No animal shall be hitched, tied or fastened by any rope, chain or cord that is directly attached to the animal’s neck. Animals that must be tied, hitched or fastened to restrain them must wear a properly fitted collar or harness made of leather or nylon, not of choker type. This is not to prohibit the proper use of choker collars in the training of animals. The tying device shall be attached to the animal’s collar or harness and shall be at least six (6) feet in length and must have a swivel device on the anchor and collar end to prevent tangling and/or choking.

Any animal that is tethered must have access to adequate water and shelter at all times.

• Every vicious animal, as determined by the Animal Control Officer, shall be confined by the owner(s) within a building or secure enclosure and shall be securely muzzled or caged whenever off the premises of its owner(s).

Town of Dyer Ordinance Section 6-82 states the following relating to “animal care” :

• A dog, cat or ferret, three (3) months of age or older, must be vaccinated against rabies by a licensed and accredited veterinarian yearly.
• No owner shall fail to provide his/her animal(s) with sufficient wholesome and nutritious food, water in sufficient quantities, proper air, shelter space and protection from weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and humane care and treatment.
• No person shall beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment, overload, overwork or otherwise abuse an animal or cause, instigate or permit any dogfight, cockfight, bullfight, or other combat between animals or between animals and humans.
• No owner of an animal shall abandon such animal.
• No person shall crop a dog’s ears or dock a dog’s tail except a licensed veterinarian. In no event shall any person except a licensed veterinarian perform such an operation.
• Chickens, ducklings or rabbits younger than eight (8) weeks of age may not be sold in quantities of less than twenty-five (25) to a single purchaser.
• No person shall give away any live animal, reptile or bird as a prize for, or as an inducement to enter, any contest, game or other competition, as an inducement to enter a place of amusement or as an incentive to enter into any business agreement whereby the offer was for the purpose of attracting trade.
• No person shall expose any known poisonous substance, whether mixed with food or not, so that the same shall be liable to be eaten by an animal, provided that it shall be lawful for a person to expose on his or her own real property common rat poison mixed only with vegetable substance.
• No person or persons shall confine any animal in a motor vehicle in such a manner that places said animal in a life or health threatening situation by exposure to a prolonged period of extreme heat or cold, without proper ventilation or other protection from such heat or cold. In order to protect the health and safety of an animal, an Animal Control Officer, law enforcement officer or other investigator, who has probable cause to believe that this Section is being violated shall have authority to enter such motor vehicle by any reasonable means under the circumstances after making a reasonable effort to locate the owner or person. The animal’s owner shall be liable for any cost incurred for removal of the animal.
• No person shall possess animal fighting paraphernalia and a dog, cock, fowl or any animal bearing a scar or injury consistent with animal fighting.
• No person shall permit anyone to use any building, shed, room, yard, ground, premises, vehicle or property, whether enclosed or not, for the purpose of animal fighting.
• The board or its agent may make sanitary inspections and surveys in all parts of this state, and shall have the right to enter upon any public or private property, examining such animals, conducting rests in regard to the presence of an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease of domestic animals and the possible sources of such disease, and performing other function authorized by this article (I.C. 15-2.1-3-1) in compliance with Indiana Animal Law.
• Public sale means any sale where the general public is invited to participate whether held in an established place of business dedicated principally to the sale of domestic animals or at a place where such sales are infrequently held. Standards for the sale and/or adoption of domesticated animals at a public place are as follows: (1) Cage area must be clean and clutter free, with proper sanitary measures taken to ensure the area does not become offensive to the public. (2) Food and water must be provided to any animal that is on display for sale or adoption. (3) Daily cleaning schedule must be posted. (4) Current vaccine records must be available at all times for any and every animal that is on display for sale or adoption (small mammals, parrot like birds and fish are not included). (5) Disinfectant must be present for use in handling and maintaining area of animals that are on display. (6) Location of cages and/or crates should not block product aisles or obstruct customer traffic flow (the store must provided consistent designated locations). (7) Any animal for sale and adoption must be properly restrained under the provisions in this chapter.

How a Dyer Dog Bite Attorney Can Help with Your Dog Bite Injury Claim

At Gladish Law Group, we have experience handling Town of Dyer dog bite cases, bringing a wealth of knowledge to each claim. Our legal team is well-versed in the specific nuances of Town of Dyer, Indiana’s dog bite laws, ensuring that you receive skillful guidance tailored to your case.

We recognize that a dog bite incident is not just a legal matter but a personal and often traumatic experience. Our team at Gladish Law Group takes a compassionate and personalized approach to each case, providing the support and understanding you need during this challenging time.

You can trust Gladish Law Group to stand by your side, advocating for the compensation you deserve. Contact us today for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Indiana Dog Bite Law

Indiana has specific laws that govern dog bite cases. The state covers them under strict liability statutes.

The key points include:

• Strict Liability: Indiana follows a strict liability approach, meaning that a dog owner can be held liable for injuries caused by their dog, regardless of the dog’s history of aggression or the owner’s knowledge of such behavior.
• Leash Laws: In some municipalities, there may be local leash laws that require owners to keep their dogs on a leash in public spaces. Violating these laws could strengthen a case against the dog owner.
• One-Bite Rule: While Indiana has strict liability, it also recognizes the one-bite rule. If the dog has shown aggressive behavior in the past and the owner knew about it, this could strengthen your case.
• Comparative Fault: Indiana follows a comparative fault system, which means that if the injured person is partially responsible for the incident, their compensation may decrease based on the percentage of fault assigned to them.

Consult an experienced dog bite lawyer in Lake County, Indiana, to navigate the specifics of your case and understand how these laws may apply to your situation. As a firm based in Lake County, Indiana, Gladish Law Group has a deep understanding of the local community and its unique dynamics. This local insight allows us to navigate the legal landscape more effectively and build strong cases that resonate with local judges and juries.

How Can a Lawyer Help Me With a Dyer Dog Bite Claim?

We may also use statutory violations for the purpose of imposing liability on dog owners for their animals biting. A victim that is a letter carrier can prove liability for a dog bite simply due to the bite occurring. A statute such as this one is in derogation of the common law. Here, the legislature clearly intended to change the common law and did so by explicitly removing the common law presumption that a dog is harmless unless it acts otherwise. Some states have chosen to impose strict liability for all dog bites. As the Restatement notes, statutes frequently abolish the necessity of science and impose strict liability for all harm caused to human beings and livestock by dogs. The Indiana statute imposes a less sweeping revision of common law. It protects only public servants, and does not expressly set a standard of conduct or impose liability for a bite. The trial court concluded that the effect of the statute was to render the owner negligent per se. Negligence per se is ordinarily found where the actor has violated a duty imposed by law. For example, violation of a statute making it a misdemeanor to permit cattle to wander onto a highway is negligence per se. Just as the Indiana statute does not explicitly create liability; it also does not expressly establish a standard of conduct. It thus does not suggest negligence per se under standard doctrine. But, proof of a violation of a leash law or other municipal ordinance can be used to establish negligence.

Finally, when wild animals are kept as pets, an owner is liable for injuries caused by the animal. This is so even if the owner had no prior knowledge of the animal’s propensity to cause harm, and even if the owner has exercised the utmost care in preventing harm. In essence, strict liability is imposed on owners of wild animals. Id. Owners of domestic animals may also be held liable for harm caused by their pet but only if the owner knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities. The owners of creatures which, as a species, are harmless and domesticated, and are kept for convenience or use, such as dogs … are not liable for injuries willfully committed by them unless he is proved to have had notice of the inclination of the particular animals complained of to commit such injuries. As with wild animals, this liability attaches regardless of the amount of care exercised by the owner. However, unlike with wild animals, when the owner of a dog has knowledge of its dangerous propensities, the rules of liability are based upon negligence and not strict liability. Because it is an action sounding in negligence, the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are available to limit this liability.