Free Case Evaluation
(253) 272-5226Free Case Evaluation
(253) 272-5226Washington State’s dog bite laws strongly favors victims. On paper, the path to getting paid seems simple. In practice, however, a Washington dog bite claim can get complicated fast. Disputed facts, tricky legal defenses, and insurance company tactics can all slow you down.
In this post, we walk through a real case from our files. It involves a woman who was bitten by her neighbor’s dog during a friendly backyard visit. The case ultimately settled for $145,000. Along the way, it raised three important legal issues that come up in many dog bite cases.
On a July evening, our client — we’ll call her Jennifer — was celebrating her birthday. Her neighbor sent her a text and asked her to come outside and chat. So Jennifer went into her backyard to meet her neighbor at the shared chain link fence between their properties.
As the two women greeted each other, Jennifer leaned over the fence. Without any barking or warning, her neighbor’s Labrador charged the fence. The dog bit the back of Jennifer’s right arm. The wound was deep and painful. The injury was too severe for stitches.
Jennifer went to the emergency room that same night. From there, her doctor referred her to wound care. For nearly two months, she had weekly wound care visits. Because the wound was serious, doctors had to remove dead tissue to help it heal. She also took multiple rounds of antibiotics.
By late September, her total medical bills reached just under $12,000. Beyond that, Jennifer described lasting emotional effects. Every time she went into her backyard, the neighbor’s dogs charged the fence again. As a result, she started avoiding her yard — and dogs in general.
Washington’s strict liability dog bite law is found at RCW 16.08.040. It protects people who are lawfully in a public place or lawfully on private property when a bite happens. However, a related law — RCW 16.08.050 — adds a key detail. When property is fenced, consent to be there is not assumed.
In this case, the dog never left the fenced yard. Instead, the bite happened because Jennifer’s arm extended over the top of the fence. Therefore, the defense argued that strict liability did not apply. Their position was that Jennifer had not been lawfully on their property.
Our response was simple. Jennifer had been invited. Her neighbor sent a text asking her to come out and chat. In response, Jennifer went into her own backyard and walked to the shared fence, exactly where they always talked. The neighbor also walked to the fence to greet her. So when Jennifer reached over to hug her neighbor, that was a natural part of an invited visit.
We also argued that lawful presence does not require a step-by-step invitation. For example, an invited guest does not lose legal protection just because she extends her arm during a greeting. In fact, the legislature created strict liability because dog bites happen suddenly, during ordinary moments like this one.
Trespassing is one of only two defenses a dog owner can use under Washington law. However, as this case shows, “trespassing” is not always clear-cut. If a neighbor, friend, or host invited you, you likely have a strong case for lawful presence. An attorney can help you make that argument.
The defense also argued that Jennifer shared the blame for her own injuries. Why? They pointed out that she knew the dogs would run toward the fence whenever someone was near the fence. Therefore, they claimed, she should have been more careful.
This argument is called comparative fault. Under Washington’s tort reform law, a defendant can ask a jury to assign some percentage of fault to the injured person. If that works, the victim’s award goes down by that percentage.
We disagreed. Washington’s strict liability statute holds the owner responsible based on the dog’s behavior — not on whether the owner was careless. Because the dog acted intentionally, comparative negligence is not a proper defense. Several Washington Supreme Court decisions support this position.
Plus, allowing this defense would defeat the whole purpose of the law. Victims would end up fighting over whether they stood too close, moved the wrong way, or should expect a dog bite when it is the dog owner who should be protecting others from their aggressive dog. The legislature wanted to prevent such arguments when they enacted strict liability for dog bites.
Insurance companies often try to shift blame after a dog bite. They may point to your behavior or the fact that you knew the dog was nearby. Do not assume this argument will succeed. An experienced attorney can challenge it and protect your right to full compensation.
Jennifer’s documented medical costs came to just under $12,000. That covered her ER visit, two months of wound care, medical supplies, and doctor fees. These are called economic damages, out-of-pocket costs that are easy to prove with bills and records.
However, the medical bills were only part of the story. Jennifer also suffered what the law calls non-economic damages. This is the human toll of what she went through. For months, she changed her wound bandages three times a day. She relied on family for tasks she couldn’t do with her injured arm. She even had to wear long sleeves on a camping vacation to cover the wound.
Beyond that, the emotional harm was real. She no longer felt safe in her own backyard. She stopped enjoying dogs, something she had always loved. She felt anxious, angry, and stuck. Her neighbors, once her friends, cut all ties. The dog still lived next door.
In the end, her non-economic damages far outweighed her medical bills. The case settled for $145,000 — more than twelve times her medical costs alone. That number reflects the full impact of the attack on her life.
This case started with a friendly text and a backyard chat. Still, the defense raised multiple legal arguments to reduce or erase the owner’s liability. Without an attorney, Jennifer might have accepted an early lowball offer. She might not have known that the trespassing or comparative fault arguments could be challenged.
In fact, many bite victims settle for far less than they deserve simply because they did not know their rights or did not have legal help early enough.
In this case, we acted fast. We documented Jennifer’s injuries from the start. We preserved the text message invitation as evidence. We also built a clear record of her emotional harm and how the attack changed her daily life. As a result, we were in a strong position when it came time to negotiate.
The sooner you call an attorney after a dog bite, the better. Evidence fades quickly. Witnesses forget. Insurance companies start building their defense right away. So should you.
If a dog has injured you in Washington, Ladenburg Law Injury Attorneys is here to help. We handle Washington dog bite claims on a contingency fee basis. That means you pay nothing unless we win.
We know the defenses insurance companies use. We know how to fight them. And we know how to make sure the full cost of your injuries — physical, financial, and emotional — is part of your claim.
There is no cost or obligation to talk with us. Call 253.272.5226 or fill out our short online form to get started today.
Note: This article is based on a real Ladenburg Law case. Certain details have been changed to protect client privacy. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.