High Court: Woman awarded €0.25m for injuries sustained during dog attack

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Finding the woman to be a credible witness in giving evidence, Mr Justice Barr was satisfied that she had suffered moderate PTSD as a result of the attack, and accepted evidence from her GP that there was a marked difference in her personality which had been described as “outgoing” prior to the attack.

Background

In September 2012, the plaintiff, “JT”, was attacked by two dogs owned by the defendants, “AM” and “FM” while walking on a public highway in County Kildare.

This was a vicious attack by the dogs, who repeatedly bit the plaintiff in the head and face area, and on her arms and legs. The plaintiff had been knocked to the ground and was lying face down on the grass verge at the side of the road to prevent the dogs biting her face and hands.

The plaintiff stated that she instinctively put her hands up to her face to protect it from being bitten by the dogs. However despite doing that, they managed to make contact with her face, head, and hands. One of the dogs managed to bite into her left ear, causing portion of the left ear to be partially torn away from her head.

The attack ceased when a neighbour of the plaintiffs came on the scene in her car and upon sounding the car horn, the dogs fled the scene.

As a result of the attack, the plaintiff suffered extensive lacerations to her face, head, left ear, arms and legs, and was left with significant scaring and discolouration in these areas. Furthermore, the plaintiff will require extensive dental surgery in the future.

Finally, the plaintiff was diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

High Court

Justice Barr explained that liability was not in issue in these proceedings, that the two dogs were put down after the attack, and that the claim was largely uncontested by the defendants.

The court was satisfied that the plaintiff gave an accurate and honest account of the incident, and of the injuries which resulted therefrom.

The court had particular regard to the evidence given by the plaintiff’s GP and dentist, who had treated her before and after the attack and painted a picture of a relatively young woman, who, prior to the attack, had been a happy, cheerful, outgoing lady, who enjoyed her work and family. The court accepted their evidence as to the profound change which the plaintiff suffered in her personality, in her appearance and in her mental state, since the attack.

The court was impressed by comments made by the plaintiff’s physiotherapist, to the effect that the plaintiff has always been well motivated in terms of her recovery and has been compliant with the treatment prescribed for her.

The court was also impressed by the fact that when the plaintiff saw that her mental state was deteriorating significantly in the months after the attack, she took positive steps to address the situation.

Damages

Turning to the assessment of damages, Justice Barr explained that the plaintiff was exposed to a prolonged and very frightening attack by the two dogs, and as a direct consequence, she suffered physical injuries in the form of lacerations and permanent scaring on her face and left arm.

While it is hoped that some improvement may be made to the facial scar, the remainder of the scars are permanent and have reached their final state; representing a serious cosmetic blemish.

Justice Barr accepted that there was a marked difference between photographs taken of the plaintiff in June 2012 and the presentation of the plaintiff in court in July 2017. He also accepted evidence that the plaintiff suffered a moderate PTSD, requiring ongoing treatment both with antidepressant medication, and further sessions of CBT; and that it was unlikely that she would return to her pre-incident state due to nightmares and an on-going avoidance behaviour of walking in the countryside.

Her social life has been restricted and she has lost some of her independence. However, she is determined to regain her independence and has, to an extent, resumed walking in built up rather than rural areas. She is likely to have an ongoing fear of being near dogs.

Justice Barr also accepted evidence that dental treatment, including of the insertion of implants to replace the missing teeth would be appropriate. The fact that the plaintiff had six teeth missing prior to the attack and a pre-existing osteoarthritic change in her jaw joints, should not cause a reduction in the quantum of damages due to the fact that they were not causing the plaintiff any problems prior to the attack.

The existence of these pre-existing conditions may have rendered the injury to the jaw joint more severe, or may have rendered the treatment of that injury more complicated, but Justice Barr was satisfied that the law is that a tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds her.

Accordingly, Justice Barr held that the defendants were liable for the injuries caused to the plaintiff’s jaw, liable for the pain of the treatment which she would have to undergo in the future, and was liable for the cost thereof.

Having regard to all the circumstances, Justice Barr made an overall award in favour of the plaintiff of €234,557, made up of general damages of €110,000 for pain and suffering to date; general damages of €70,000 for pain and suffering into the future; and special damages of €54,557.