Dog bites can lead to severe injuries and legal complexities. If you’re facing liability for a dog bite incident, understanding the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk can be crucial to your defense.

This legal concept asserts that a plaintiff may have voluntarily exposed themselves to a known risk, which can limit or even negate your liability as a dog owner. In Michigan, particularly, this doctrine can be a powerful tool, especially when the plaintiff is aware of the dog’s aggressive tendencies.

Michigan’s Dog Bite Statute and Assumption of Risk

It’s important to understand how Michigan’s dog bite statute (MCL 287.351) affects the assumption of risk defense. This statute makes dog owners strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs, regardless of whether they knew the dog was dangerous.

However, exceptions exist, such as when the person bitten was trespassing or provoked the dog. The “provoking the dog” exception can be relevant to the assumption of risk.

If someone knowingly and voluntarily puts themselves in a situation where a dog bite is likely, a court might consider this as provoking the dog or assuming the risk. However, this is not a guaranteed defense, and the case’s specific circumstances will be crucial.

Conditions Required to Prove Assumption of Risk in Dog Bite Defense

To successfully invoke the Assumption of Risk defense, certain key elements must be established:

1. Knowledge of the Risk: The plaintiff knew or should have known about the risk posed by the dog.
2. Voluntary Acceptance: The plaintiff voluntarily exposed themselves to the risk.
3. Appreciation of the Danger: The plaintiff understood the nature and extent of the risk involved.

Scenarios Where the Defense is Most Effective

• • Dog Trainers and Groomers: Professionals who work with animals are generally aware of the risks involved. If a trainer or groomer is bitten, the defense can argue that they assumed the risk inherent in their profession.
  • Ignoring Warning Signs: If a visitor ignores clear warning signs like “Beware of Dog” or verbal warnings from the owner, it strengthens the defense’s position.
  • Previous Interactions: If the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the dog’s aggressive behavior through past interactions, it can be argued they accepted the risk by choosing to engage with the dog again.

Proving the plaintiff’s awareness and voluntary acceptance of the risk can shift the burden of proof, making it more challenging for them to claim damages.

Common Defenses Used Alongside Assumption of Risk in Dog Bite Cases

The Assumption of Risk doctrine doesn’t have to stand alone. It can be combined with other defenses to strengthen your case:

• • Provocation: This can be a valid defense if the plaintiff provoked the dog. Provocation includes teasing, hitting, or threatening the dog.
  • Trespassing: If the plaintiff was unlawfully on your property, you might not be liable for the injuries sustained.
  • Comparative Negligence: Michigan follows the comparative negligence rule, meaning the plaintiff’s compensation can be reduced by their percentage of fault.

Michigan Court Examples

Michigan courts have accepted the Assumption of Risk defense in cases where the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the dog’s behavior. For instance, if someone repeatedly ignored warnings about a dog’s aggression and got bitten, courts have ruled in favor of the defendant. An experienced Grand Haven personal injury attorney can strategically use multiple defenses to reduce or eliminate liability.

Challenges in Utilizing the Assumption of Risk Defense

While the Assumption of Risk can be a powerful defense, it comes with challenges:

• • Proving Plaintiff’s Knowledge: You must provide evidence that the plaintiff knew about the risk. This could be through witness testimony, prior incidents, or documented warnings.
  • Plaintiff’s Counterarguments: The plaintiff may argue they were unaware of the dog’s aggressive nature or didn’t fully understand the risk involved.
  • Limitations by Law: Michigan law, particularly MCL 287.351, may have specific statutes that limit the applicability of this defense in certain situations.

Because of these challenges, gathering strong evidence is essential. Documentation like warning signs, previous complaints, or expert testimony can support your case.

Assumption of Risk and Children

Michigan courts are less likely to apply the Assumption of Risk defense against children. This is because children, especially young children, may not fully appreciate the danger a dog poses, even if they have been warned. When evaluating whether they honestly assumed the risk, the court will consider the child’s age, maturity, and experience with dogs.

Protect Your Rights—Consult with Our Michigan Attorneys in Grand Haven for Expert Dog Bite Defense

Navigating the complexities of dog bite laws in Michigan can be daunting. That’s where we come in. As seasoned Grand Haven personal injury attorneys, we have the expertise to help you explore the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk and other viable defenses.

We understand the emotional and financial stress such incidents can cause. Our goal is to protect your rights and provide you with a robust defense strategy tailored to your situation. Don’t leave your case to chance—legal nuances can make all the difference in the outcome.

Contact Shafer Swartz PLC today at (231) 722-2444! Let’s discuss the specifics of your case and determine the best path forward. We’re here to help you navigate this challenging time with confidence and peace of mind.