Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog
My thoughts about dog bite cases, oddly enough, often begin with my thoughts about car accident cases. There are good reasons for this.
In a car accident case, there are mechanisms which help a Plaintiff identify the wrongdoer; along with mechanisms for having a neutral third party (the police), investigate what happened at the scene of the accident.
After a car accident, the parties are supposed to exchange insurance information, and other personal information to help identify themselves after the accident happened. This is codified under the law. Section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act states:
200 (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,
(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;
(b) render all possible assistance; and
(c) upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, driver’s licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number.
Section 320.16(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada states:
Failure to stop after accident
320.16 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance and who at the time of operating the conveyance knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conveyance has been involved in an accident with a person or another conveyance and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the conveyance, give their name and address and, if any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.
Even if the wrongdoer flees the scene of the accident, a Plaintiff or another witness can identify the make, model, colour and the license plate number of the vehicle. That way, there are some clues to help track this person down. Eventually, with that information, the at fault party will be caught, and their identity will come to light. Even if the Plaintiff can’t identify the at fault party because they were using a stolen license plate and fled the accident scene never to be found again; the Plaintiff still has recourse with their own insurance company in order to claim compensation for their damages, pain and suffering.
The opposite is true in a dog bite case.
There is no legal requirement for a dog owner to remain at the scene of a dog bite, and exchange personal or insurance information with a Plaintiff. They can leave the scene of the dog attack and not get charged for leaving! There is no wording contained in the Dog Owner’s Liability Act requiring a Defendant dog owner to remain, offer assistance, or to identify themselves. They can take off from the scene of the dog attack without any identifiable repercussion under the Dog Owner’s Liability Act. Someone ought to look into this and change the act to include such a requirement. It would be a rather simple amendment and it wouldn’t be very controversial given that similar laws are already in place under different (albeit unrelated) statues.
This is why it’s very important for a victim of a dog bite, or dog attack to get the name and contact information of the dog owner. Sometimes, the dog owner won’t be forthcoming with this information. Taking a photo of the person, their car, their license plate, or finding out where they live is a great starting point. Some Plaintiffs follow the person home so that they know where they live. Once you have that information, it can be relayed over to the local Animal Control Department or Public Health so that they can complete an investigation. Imagine approaching Animal Control or Public Health when you don’t have any identifying information for the dog owner. Where would they begin their investigation, and how would they find out the identity of the dog, or the dog owner? Conducting such an investigation blind, and without a good starting is a very difficult task. Contrary to popular belief, there aren’t active or functioning cameras everywhere which will identify the name and address of a dog owner like you would see in the movies. If there is any video evidence, it’s usually grainy, or not pointed at the right place. It’s rare that it’s in high definition quality to be of any serviceable use (if it exists at all). My point in saying this is that you cannot operate like cameras pick up your every move and will be able to magically track down the at fault party. The best way to secure the identity and contact information of the at fault party is doing so right there are the scene of the dog attack itself. Because if you don’t, that person might be gone forever. And once they’re gone, they’re gone and neither you, nor your lawyer can sue an unidentified party in a dog attack case. Unlike a car accident case, there’s no liability insurance for being involved in a dog attack with an unknown party which will cover you for your damages, pain and suffering.
So, what’s my point in all of this?
It’s important for a victim of a dog attack to be mindful, and to be proactive at the scene of the dog attack. If you let the dog owner leave the scene of the dog attack without getting their identifying information, you’re letting them get away and then you might be without recourse because you’re chasing a ghost. It’s important not to assume that the police will magically appear at the scene of the dog attack and compel the dog owner to give a statement and provide their information to you. The police, very rarely, are called upon to investigate dog attacks. These are handled by Municipal Bi-Law Officers and by Public Health, who aren’t expected to come out to the scene like a police officer, or a fire fighter. If a Plaintiff has the name and contact information of the dog owner, it can be shared with Bi-Law Officials or Public Health during the course of their investigation which will likely take place long after the dog attack has taken place.
