Macon, GA Dog Bite & Animal Attack Lawyer

Non-domesticated animals, such as large cats, monkeys or apes, that are ordinarily found in the wild but owned by people as pets or held in private animal refuges have also been known to attack children and adults.

In Georgia and throughout the U.S., an animal owner’s liability for injuries caused by his or her pet varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Our experienced animal attack injury lawyers in Macon, GA are experts in local dog bite and personal injury law. We’ve represented Georgia residents for over 50 years, and we’re an excellent source for advice and information about animal attack cases near you.

To prove that an animal’s owner should be held responsible for your injuries under Georgia law, you must prove that:

An owner of an animal may be found liable under any circumstances in which he or she had knowledge of the animal’s viciousness but failed to act in order to prevent injuries to others. Accordingly, if an animal exhibits vicious or uncontrollable behavior, the owner should take steps to shield the public from the animal.

For example, if your neighbor owns a dog that is known to attack and bite without provocation, the owner should keep the dog safely confined indoors or in a yard from which it cannot escape and that others cannot easily enter. If your neighbor doesn’t adhere to these common sense guidelines and the animal attacks you or your child, then they may be found liable for the resulting injuries.

It’s important to note that it’s not necessary for the animal to actually bite or attack the victim to hold the owner liable for an injury. For example, a person who breaks his or her ankle in a frightened attempt to get away from a fenced-in dog’s snapping, barking or other aggressive behavior may be able to sue the dog’s owner successfully if they can show that the actions of the dog led to their injury.

Those who keep animals generally considered “wild” or undomesticated, such as lions, wolves, bears, alligators, crocodiles, tigers and monkeys, are typically liable for injuries caused by such animals regardless of whether the particular animal is known to be dangerous. Because these animals are generally presumed to have a natural tendency to revert to their wild instincts, no matter how well trained or domesticated, their owners may be held “strictly liable” for any injuries they may cause.

However, strict liability might not apply if the animal injures someone while being confined or restrained on its owner’s property. But this is a factually dependent argument that will not apply in every case.