Dog bit postmans finger - now Im being sued

ShaneLad

So the dog apparently bit the postmans finger as he was putting letters though the letterbox - We received a solicitors letter stating that we're being sued. The letter was addressed to "The Home Owner".

Now heres the thing - Theres 4 of us who rent the house (so none of us are the home owner) and the dog in question doesn't have a licence and doesn't offically belong to anyone.

So where do we stand on this, any advice / experience is appreciated!

dharn

No owner, he just strayed in that morning...

coylemj

Counter sue the postman for trespass, he had no permission to enter the house!

Ignore it, they need to sue an individual or company. They're just fishing and anyone silly enough to respond will become the named defendant.

dharn

Counter sue the postman for trespass, he had no permission to enter the house

Thats a silly comment, post man did not enter house, fingers in letterbox, how does he deliver post ?

Claw Hammer

dharn wrote: »

Thats a silly comment, post man did not enter house, fingers in letterbox, how does he deliver post ?

He is supposed to put the post into the letterbox and not his finger.
The landlord will have 3rd party insurance cover and the letter should be sent to his insurers.

Pro Hoc Vice

Considering the postman knows the names of all people associated with the house why did the solicitor just not send an O'Byrne letter to each person as any reasonable solicitor would do. Don't see why it would be addressed to home owner. Seems a bit weird.

Ken.

Maybe the postman knows the house is rented out and that the 'homeowner' doesn't live there. Wouldn't anything addressed to 'homeowner' have to be passed on to the landlord unopened. That's what we do where we rent.

coylemj

dharn wrote: »

Counter sue the postman for trespass, he had no permission to enter the house

Thats a silly comment, post man did not enter house, fingers in letterbox, how does he deliver post ?

Yours is the 'silly' comment - don't you get irony or have you no sense of humour FFS.

Oink

ShaneLad wrote: »

the dog in question doesn't have a licence and doesn't offically belong to anyone.

Who brought it home, and who decided that it could stay?

slimjimmc

It doesn't matter if you own the house or not, you are an occupier. That probably makes you and your buddies equally responsible for the dog licence unless you can prove you don't own the dog and it was there without your knowledge. I imagine whoever is the principal on the lease is first in the firing line unless someone else owes up.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/act/pub/0032/sec0002.html#sec2

2.—(1) Subject to section 5 of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to—
(a) keep a dog unless he holds either—
(i) a dog licence for that dog, or
(ii) a general dog licence, or
(b) take possession, unless he is the holder of a general dog licence, of a dog, pursuant to a change of ownership, before the issue of a dog licence in respect of that dog, or
(c) transfer possession of a dog pursuant to a change of ownership to any other person unless the other person is the holder of a dog licence for that dog or a general dog licence.

(2) The occupier of any premises where a dog is found shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the person who keeps the dog unless he proves that—
(a) he is not the owner of the dog, and
(b) the dog was kept on the premises either—

(i) without his knowledge, or
(ii) by some other person who had a licence for the dog.

sopretty

He's suing the home-owner, not the occupier.

sopretty

It sounds like a mental case to be pursuing with no legal grounding to be honest. How can he prove it was your dog? Who owns the dog? Has he any witnesses? Is it himself who is suing or An Post? Have you googled the solicitor's firm?

sopretty

I'd also google any other cases An Post or postmen may have taken against owners of dogs.
How the hell did the dog manage to bite him lol. The dog must have been lying in wait!

cheekypup

who opened the letter? surely it's illegal to open mail not addressed to you?

slimjimmc

sopretty wrote: »

He's suing the home-owner, not the occupier.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, I was merely referring to the dog licence as it's mentioned in the OP.

coylemj

cheekypup wrote: »

who opened the letter? surely it's illegal to open mail not addressed to you?

More to the point, who delivered the solicitor's letter?

Perhaps it was the same postman but using his other hand?

Pat Mustard

ShaneLad wrote: »

We received a solicitors letter stating that we're being sued. The letter was addressed to "The Home Owner".

Now heres the thing - Theres 4 of us who rent the house (so none of us are the home owner) and the dog in question doesn't have a licence and doesn't offically belong to anyone.

I'm taking a guess that the landlord dd not give you permission to keep a dog. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not too many landlords would want a dog or animal kept on their premises.

You could check your lease to see if there is a (standard) clause about not keeping a dog or any animal.

I'm guessing that you didn't take out insurance. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you did take out insurance, you could check the policy to see what is covered and you could also check to see if there is an obligation to notify the insurance company in early course.

I'd take a wild guess that if there is no response to the solicitor's letter in early course, it's possible that the solicitor's next move may be to carry out land registry searches (or other searches), which may disclose the landlord's contact address. This could mean that your landlord may hear about this matter very soon. I'd take a guess that your landlord may be happy enough to give up whatever details are necessary, so as to direct litigation away from him, especially if he gave no permission for the occupiers to keep a dog on the premises in the first place.

So perhaps it is possible that the occupants of the house may receive more personalized correspondence in early course.

Therefore, what I am saying is that it may be possible that you only have a short period of time to take whatever advice or action needs to be taken, before this happens.

All I am saying is use your time wisely.

You will know from the forum charter that legal advice isn't allowed on this forum, only legal discussion.

What kind of deposit did you pay for the house?

WildRosie

This article might be relevant OP:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pizza-delivery-man-gets-7000-after-dog-bites-hand-through-letterbox-29064094.html

beauf

Its interesting that one judge has overturned another judge.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pizza-delivery-man-loses-case-after-alleging-he-was-bitten-by-dog-through-letterbox-26824571.html

Originally looking for €38k. Now got €7k + costs which would be considerable since he took it to the high court after losing the previous case.

Doop

The Mustard wrote: »

I'm guessing that you didn't take out insurance. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you did take out insurance, you could check the policy to see what is covered and you could also check to see if there is an obligation to notify the insurance company in early course.

What sort of insurance are you on about?

contents insurance?
Dog biting postman insurance?

234

OP you should look at the strict liability provisions in s.21 of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986 and the following definition of "owner" from the same Act:

“owner” in relation to a dog includes the occupier of any premises where the dog is kept or permitted to live or remain at any particular time unless such occupier proves to the contrary: Provided always that where there is more than one dwelling in any house, the occupier of the dwelling in which the dog is kept, or is permitted to live or remain, shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be the owner;

You should consult a solicitor. There is a real possibility of liability.

Pro Hoc Vice

Doop wrote: »

What sort of insurance are you on about?

contents insurance?
Dog biting postman insurance?

Nope I assume its public liability insurance any good house policy should have it.

downonthefarm

Its up to him to prove he was injured on your property...does he have any witnesses?can he prove the dog bit him,and can he prove it was your dog,
He is chancing his arm,tell him to get the fcuk

old_aussie

Wouldn't the postman be covered by workers compensation...since he was allegedly delivering mail at the time of the alleged injury inflicted by the dog.

BandyMandy

I cant believe the postman got his hand bitten by your dog through the letter-box, in the first place. No-way would his hand would his hand be going that far into the box..unless he deliberately left it there to be bitten...... Sounds like a chancer to me!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

downonthefarm wrote: »

Its up to him to prove he was injured on your property...does he have any witnesses?can he prove the dog bit him,and can he prove it was your dog,
He is chancing his arm,tell him to get the fcuk

The postmans evidence together with the medical evidence would be enough. Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's how a large number of PI cases run. The only evidence of the fall, the dog bite etc. is the plaintiff's own evidence. But in any event I find it highly unusual and I question any solicitor writing to the "home owner" when a solicitor could have the land owners name from a very cheap search.

Pro Hoc Vice

BandyMandy wrote: »

I cant believe the postman got his hand bitten by your dog through the letter-box, in the first place. No-way would his hand would his hand be going that far into the box..unless he deliberately left it there to be bitten...... Sounds like a chancer to me!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115256/Postmen-bite-dog-attacks-Royal-Mail-launch-probe-staff-mauled-4-000-times-year.html

"In August 2011, Andrew Berge suffered severe damage to his left-hand ring finger and tendon when a dog bit him in south west London.

As I posted an item through the letterbox, a dog bit and held on for four to five minutes,' he said."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/postman-awarded-22000-after-being-bitten-by-dog-28948722.html

Peregrinus

The initial letter may be addressed to the home owner, but if it does come to issuing proceedings then everyone in sight will be sued - the landlord (whose identity is easily established from public records) and all the tenants (whose identity can be established by asking the landlord, who will be only too happy to name those who he will undoubtedly consider should bear any liability that may be found.

As for evidence, there will presumably be medical evidence of the postman's injuries, the postman himself can give evidence as to where and when the injuries were incurred, and from what we read in this thread nobody will be able to contradict that evidence with any credibility.

Whether the dog is licensed is irrelevant. Whether the dog's owner can be identified is irrelevant. The occupiers of the property had a dog on their premises who bit the postman when the postman, quite properly and quite forseeably, put letters in through the letterbox. The occupiers of the property are responsible for whatever livestock they keep, and if they failed to prevent an animal kept by them on the property from injuring the postman going about his proper business, this case can only end one way.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sopretty

So, say, if the postman wins the case against the OP and the postman is awarded compensation, will the OP have to pay it out of their own pocket? Maybe that's why he's going after the home owner rather than the tenants!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a judges job based on the evidence given in court. If the people in number 2 want to give evidence that it was their dog then that can be said in front of the judge.

Pro Hoc Vice

sopretty wrote: »

So, say, if the postman wins the case against the OP and the postman is awarded compensation, will the OP have to pay it out of their own pocket? Maybe that's why he's going after the home owner rather than the tenants!

No use going after a person with deep pockets unless they are liable.

sopretty

infosys wrote: »

No use going after a person with deep pockets unless they are liable.

That's true!

Maybe the postman doesn't know the house is rented out.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The postman can say that he was bitten at no 2 - he was (obviously) a witness to the bite.

The people at no 2 can say that he could have been bitten at another house. But they can't say that he was bitten at no. 12 unless they saw him being bitten there. And they can't say that he wasn't bitten at no. 2 unless they were saw him delivering the letters that day, and leaving unbitten.

Assuming they didn't actually witness these things, they're going to have to come up with some fairly elaborate lies in order to give that kind of evidence. And elaborate lies are, of course, usually fairly easily exposed.

Even if they do come up with elaborate lies which are not exposed, it then comes down to the question of whose evidence the judge fiinds more credible. And while the postman has no incentive to invent a story in which his bite was incurred in a house full of uninsured renters, the uninsured renters have every motivation for inventing a story in which he was bitten in another house.

Doop

The Mustard
I'm guessing that you didn't take out insurance. Correct me if I'm wrong. If you did take out insurance, you could check the policy to see what is covered and you could also check to see if there is an obligation to notify the insurance company in early course.

Doop
What sort of insurance are you on about?
contents insurance?
Dog biting postman insurance?

infosys wrote: »

Nope I assume its public liability insurance any good house policy should have it.

Tenant cant take out home insurance on a house he doesn't own.....

234

Doop wrote: »

Tenant cant take out home insurance on a house he doesn't own.....

Yes he can. A contractual interest in property is a sufficient insurable interest.

Pro Hoc Vice

Doop wrote: »

Tenant cant take out home insurance on a house he doesn't own.....

No but he can insure contents and public liability.

234

infosys wrote: »

No

Tenants can insure the property itself. In fact, they can even insure the freeholder's interest and the freeholder can potentially claim on that policy.

Church and General Insurance Co v Connolly High Court (Costello J) 7 May 1981 unrep.

sopretty

Has the OP emigrated lol? No word from him since.

Pat Mustard

Doop wrote: »

What sort of insurance are you on about?

contents insurance?
Dog biting postman insurance?

Yes, it's almost like car colliding into pedestrian insurance, except for people who live in houses.

mikom

sopretty wrote: »

Has the OP emigrated lol? No word from him since.

Probably busy pulling out the dogs teeth with a pliers........ #dentalrecords.

Pro Hoc Vice

234 wrote: »

Tenants can insure the property itself. In fact, they can even insure the freeholder's interest and the freeholder can potentially claim on that policy.

Church and General Insurance Co v Connolly High Court (Costello J) 7 May 1981 unrep.

While correct, I would think the law does not allow a Tenant to insure the building at the same time the landlord has the building insured. I would think it is possible for a tenant to have as part of the lease that has insurance on the building to the benefit of the landlord. But I do not think the case above allows for what could in effect be double insurance. But it would not to the best of my knowledge be normal in the general scheme of things for a residential tenancy to require a tenant to insure the risks in relation to the building.

sopretty

I'm a council tenant (not sure if we're treated differently to private tenants) and when you sign the lease, you get a reminder letter that the Council only insures the 'building' against fire and floods I think, and reminds you that you are responsible for organising your own personal contents insurance. I've never gotten contents insurance, so I don't know if you would also have the option of having public liability type insurance along with it? To be honest, I would imagine very few tenants would even think of such a thing!

234

infosys wrote: »

While correct, I would think the law does not allow a Tenant to insure the building at the same time the landlord has the building insured. I would think it is possible for a tenant to have as part of the lease that has insurance on the building to the benefit of the landlord. But I do not think the case above allows for what could in effect be double insurance. But it would not to the best of my knowledge be normal in the general scheme of things for a residential tenancy to require a tenant to insure the risks in relation to the building.

Double insurance is completely normal in the industry. The contribution principle just means that claims are allocated pro rata based on the value of the policies so that double recovery cannot happen.

Claw Hammer

234 wrote: »

Double insurance is completely normal in the industry. The contribution principle just means that claims are allocated pro rata based on the value of the policies so that double recovery cannot happen.

The Landlord is required to have insurance under the Residential Tenancies Act. The tenant in a commercial building will insure the building in situations where there is a repairing covenant in place. Most commercial leases are full repairing and insuring.

bucketybuck

Out of curiosity, what if the OP simply said that they didn't have a dog, therefore this couldn't have happened?

Assuming of course that the OP has in the meantime gotten rid of said dog, how could the postman prove that the incident happened at this particular house, a house that when searched has no sign of a dog at all?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

bucketybuck

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I asked about proof, not perjury.