Dog bit postmans finger - now Im being sued

AnnaStezia

If the hall door is as opaque as Oscar's bathroom door the postman cannot even say that he was bitten by a dog or give a description of the assailant !

Adducing circumstantial evidence that is equally consistent with the allegation does not usually discharge the burden of proof.

234

I think that we all need to remember that this is a civil burden of proof i.e. the postman would just need to show that it is more likely than not that his version of events is true.

And yes, motivation and credibility will go towards discharging this burden. A judge is perfectly entitled to say "I prefer the evidence of x, and not that of y."

The postman has to convince the court. He doesn't need to set up a flawless chain of evidence proving that he turned up for work, that he was walking down the street at the time in question, that he in fact has a finger to be bitten.

SpaceTime

If this becomes common, I guess mailboxes with a notice not to enter the property will be necessary.

Pro Hoc Vice

AnnaStezia wrote: »

If the hall door is as opaque as Oscar's bathroom door the postman cannot even say that he was bitten by a dog or give a description of the assailant !

Adducing circumstantial evidence that is equally consistent with the allegation does not usually discharge the burden of proof.

The only evidence required is a injury and the cause of that injury and negligence. The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Peregrinus

bucketybuck wrote: »

But all this is just supposition. It might seem like the logical answer, but what can the postman actually prove in court?

Surely it takes more to convict somebody than a simple "Why would the postman lie"? Surely the burden of proof needs more than just assumptions? . . . .

This is not a criminal matter, where the state has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt; it's a civil matter, a dispute between two citizens, and if there is a conflict of evidence between them, there is no presumption in favour of one or the other; the burden of proof on both sides is not to establish their case "beyond all reasonable doubt", but "on the balance of probabilities". This means that, in a direct conflict of evidence, the court is basically asking itself, which of these two accounts is more probably true?

In this case, the postman would have no motive to make a story saying he had been bitten at a house where he was not bitten and where, it is alleged, there is no dog, whereas the tenants have every motivation to make up a story saying that there is no dog. That's a consideration which would weigh with the court in deciding which version was more credible, but it's not a slam-dunk. There'll be other factors, like the demeanour of the witnesses on both sides when giving their evidence. There could also be other evidence, e.g. from another postman who is familiar with the house because he has worked the same round, and who may be able to confirm that, yes, there is a snappish dog at the house. (For obvious reasons, postmen note these things.)

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

If this becomes common, I guess mailboxes with a notice not to enter the property will be necessary.

No. If you have snappish dog who is kept indoors, all you need to do is screw one of those little baskets inside the letterbox. This has the twin functions of catching the letters, and preventing the dog from biting the hand that delivers them.

If you have a snappish dog that you keep outside, and unchained, you'll find that your mail stops being delivered. Instead, the postman will leave a note attached to your gate saying that you have a dog at large, and that if you wan your mail you can either collect it from the delivery office, or secure your dog.

Bottom line; if you have a snappish dog, it's not other people's responsibility to avoid him; it's your responsiblity to control him.

bucketybuck

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is not a criminal matter, where the state has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt; it's a civil matter, a dispute between two citizens

Which two citizens?

Beano

bucketybuck wrote: »

Which two citizens?

the postman and the occupier.

SpaceTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. If you have snappish dog who is kept indoors, all you need to do is screw one of those little baskets inside the letterbox. This has the twin functions of catching the letters, and preventing the dog from biting the hand that delivers them.

If you have a snappish dog that you keep outside, and unchained, you'll find that your mail stops being delivered. Instead, the postman will leave a note attached to your gate saying that you have a dog at large, and that if you wan your mail you can either collect it from the delivery office, or secure your dog.

Bottom line; if you have a snappish dog, it's not other people's responsibility to avoid him; it's your responsiblity to control him.

I mean will we start to see people having mailboxes at their front gate with An Post staff no longer entering the property at all.

This is common in other countries.

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

I mean will we start to see people having mailboxes at their front gate with An Post staff no longer entering the property at all.

This is common in other countries.

It is common. It's not because of dogs, though, but because of cost-saving in delivering the mail. I think it's already the case that if your front door is more than a certain distance from the road An Post requires you to set up a roadside mailbox to safe the postman the long trek down your driveway.

SpaceTime

In France its because of insurance. At least that's what I've been told.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, think for a minute. The medical evidence wil show that the postman was bitten. Given the choice between suing the occupiers of the house where he was bitten and the occupiers of a completely different house, why would he sue the wrong people? Especially if, as they claim, they don't even have a dog? It makes no sense for the postman to lie in this circumstance; he can only damage his prospects of recovering damages by lying. Whereas the tenants have every reason to lie. So the postman will be judged the more credible witness.

This guy gets bitten by a stray mut in the park. He sues somebody. No evidence. And the Judge says 'ah but it makes no sense for him to lie' Awards damages.

Luckily our courts rely on evidence. I'd hate to live in your weird alternative reality.

Pat Mustard

That's not a good comparison.

First, the Control of Dogs Act will make an occupier of a premises liable for such a dog.

Secondly, the occupier will be identifiable as a defendant because the premises is identifiable.

This is not the case in relation to some stray dog in park.

Peregrinus

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

This guy gets bitten by a stray mut in the park. He sues somebody. No evidence. And the Judge says 'ah but it makes no sense for him to lie' Awards damages.

Luckily our courts rely on evidence. I'd hate to live in your weird alternative reality.

You do realise that most evidence is personal testimony, don't you? The postman will testify that he was bitten at such-and-such an address while inserting letters into the letter box. That's evidence that he was bitten as described. The occupier will testify that no dog is kept at the premises; that's evidence that he was not bitten as described. The judge will have to decide, having heard that evidence and any other evidence that may be given, e.g. the medical evidence, whether on the balance of probabilities the postman was bitten as described.

How did you think it worked?

Peregrinus

AnnaStezia wrote: »

If the hall door is as opaque as Oscar's bathroom door the postman cannot even say that he was bitten by a dog or give a description of the assailant !

So what? Are you under the impression that if the postman was bitten not by a dog but by the householder himself, there would be no liability?

The postman doesn't have to give much of a description of the assailant to recover. He formed the impression that it was a dog, I hazard a guess, from the barking and snarling that accompanied the attack and from the fact that not many householders keep, e.g. hyenas in the hallway. And it's no defence to say "you can't be sure it was a dog, it could have been a hyena!" because if your hyena bites the postman you're just as liable as if your dog had bitten him.

bucketybuck

Beano wrote: »

the postman and the occupier.

There are four occupiers, none of whom own the property or claim ownership of any dog. So, again, which one?

Pat Mustard

bucketybuck wrote: »

There are four occupiers, none of whom own the property or claim ownership of any dog. So, again, which one?

Everybody, at Injuries Board stage.

In this case, as the Control of Dogs Act imposes this liability upon the occupiers of a premises in which a dog is kept, it makes sense that all four of the occupiers would be named. Although I am unsure how liability could attach to the landlord, it would cost nothing extra to name him as a respondent in an application to the Injuries Board. Therefore, it would seem to be a prudent course of action that he should be named as a co-respondent at this stage, especially since costs would not arise before the issue of court proceedings.

Peregrinus

bucketybuck wrote: »

There are four occupiers, none of whom own the property or claim ownership of any dog. So, again, which one?

All of them. As joint occupiers, they're jointly liable for the thing that occupiers are liable for. They can sort out among themselves who pays what, and if necessary they can go to court and argue about it, but that,s not the postman's concern. Whatever damages he is awarded he can recover from any of them.

irishmover

This thread reminds me of this video

Except the postman is saying 'Your dog bit my finger, so now I'm going to sue' in the same voice as the kid.

Praetorian

Maybe ye should all move out and it will be the next tenants problem