Brian Stacey, a minor, suffered serious scarring when he was bit by a neighbor's pit bull. He sued the Colonial Acres Associates, LLC, and Newbury Management Co., the operators of the trailer park where he lived, alleging that they bore some of the responsibility for his injury. Through his parents, Stacey argued that the Defendants had violated their own rules by allowing the pit bull to live in the trailer park for years, despite the prohibition of several breeds of dogs known to have a propensity for biting or violent behavior.
Continue reading "Injury victims "0 for 3" on the day: Summary judgment granted to insurers in all cases, including dob bite." »
Jimmy Johnson was injured in an attack by two dogs who escaped from a nearby property. He sued the owner of the dogs and also sued the landlord of the premises where the dogs were kept (probably in part because the tenants probably did not have any insurance to cover their liability and the property owner did).
Continue reading "Landlord can't be held responsible for tenant's loose dogs" »
Kallie Roesner and her neighbors Robert Tyler and Helen Hourdakis have engaged in a long-running dispute over property boundaries, alleged stalking, trespass, assault and whatever other neighborly conduct can be accompanied by a "hand gesture." Eventually, Roesner filed a lawsuit (not the first between them) alleging that the Defendants' dogs had run into the road and startled the horse she was riding, causing her to suffer a broken nose, a herniated disk, "whiplash" and a wrist injury. The Circuit Court judge dismissed her various claims, including her claim that the defendants' loose dogs violated Oakland County's leash ordinance. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld most of the dismissal, but reinstated the injury claim arising out of the violation of the leash ordinance.
Continue reading "Dispute among "horsey" set in Oakland County addresses stray dogs and leash ordinance" »
This week the Supreme Court decided a case arising out of the negligent management of a horse. The case, Tina Lee Beattie v. Mark Mickalich, had originally been dismissed by the Lapeer County Circuit Court when the trial judge decided that Mickalich was protected and immune from suit because of the Equine Activity LIability Act. The Court of Appeals had agreed with the lower court, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that by its precise terms, the Act preserved responsibility in the owner "if the person commits a negligent act or omission that constitutes a proximate cause of the injury." Justice Markman wrote separately to confirm that the plain language of the Act "does not provide blanket immunity to a horse owner." Justice Young, despite this plain language, would grant the horse owner immunity, and as usual, Justice Corrigan would also have given the immunity language in the statute broad application to protect insurers.
Trina Beattie was injured when a horse being saddled by its owner startled and lifted her off the ground as she grasped its halter. She missed several months of work and has continuing long-term physical ramificiations from the injuries she suffered. Beattie and two companions alleged she'd been invited to defendant's home to ride a partially-broke horse, while defendant argued Beattie had invited herself. Before reaching the factual discrepancies, however, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Beattie's case, based on its interpretation of the Equine Activity LIability Act.
Continue reading "Court interprets Equine Activity Liability Act to protect owner from negligence" »
In Lapeer County, Larry McDowell maintained a deer and elk farm. His animals were consistently harrassed by the neighbors dogs (apparently 13 of them). During the time period in question, he lost almost fifty percent of his animals, compared with an annual loss, normally, of only 2-3 percent. The losses stopped when Defendant got rid of her dogs, and numerous witnesses testified to the invasion of his farm by Defendant's dogs during the time period in question.
Continue reading "Dogs running loose create 100K debt" »