DJ_Iceman

Thanks for keeping us posted, deac83. I'm glad you didn't get seriously hurt, and this is probably going to go down as one of those stories you tell your friends and family at parties for years to come. But I'm still ticked off at that dog owner for being the kind of selfish, oblivious jerk that seem to be taking over society these days...

knownothing

In Calif:

1) Apparently you got the name of the dog's owner. The hotel is not obligated to tell you.
2) The hotel is not libel. Same example if in bar and drunk hits you.
3) The owner is libel.
4) If you reached out to pet the dog (how did 'he" get your hand, then you are to blame and courts will find against you. As someone above said, owners have sued and won those bitten who reached out to pet the dog. If you reached out to pet the dog, you provoked him and owner is not liable. cf https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...voked-dog.html

Voodoo Daddy

The article you linked does not say what you are purporting above. I'm no lawyer, but I have my doubts that trying to pet a dog would be considered provocation. Even if it were, the very article you linked to indicates that many other factors are also in play and it isn't nearly as black and white as you state above. Finally, how you can you state absolutely that the hotel is not liable? If a hotel is proven negligent the hotel can be held liable for an injury to a guest. Whether that could be proven in this case, neither of us knows.

HNLbasedFlyer

Lawyers think in terms of damages - and while this incident is very unfortunate, it doesn't translate to a level of high damages (a mauling, dozens of stiches, overnight hospital stays, missed work, infections, etc).

You are certainly entitled to not be out of pocket after what your insurance covers and if the dog owner or Marriott doesn't cover your out of pocket bills - then it is time to file a small claims case - and if it rises to a level of actually going to small claims, you can always ask for pain and suffering (emphasis on ask, versus actually receiving). I suspect a letter to the hotel detailing your out of pocket expenses and a request for goodwill compensation in addition to those expenses will, in my opinion if modest, will get paid by the hotel quickly.

knownothing

HN: breaking of the skin is probably enough to to imply damages
Voodoo: Provacation depends on which state, dog and history: eg: 1) And in Arizona, provocation happens regardless of the intentions of the plaintiff since provocation depends on whether the action caused the animal to react (rather than on the intent of the actor) Toney v Bouthillier (Ariz App 1981) 631 P2d 557. 2) has the dog ever bit before. 3) Very generally, whether provocation occurred in any given instance depends on whether the action of the plaintiff directed to the dog could have foreseeably could have elicited an aggressive response from the dog. For instance petting a cocker spaniel would not be a foreseeable defense while attempting to pet a pig bull - esp from behind might. As for the hotel, you might find negligence if the dog was off its lease and the hotel had a sign saying they should be and ignored the dog/owner. But otherwise not. Brown v. FMW RRI NC, LLC is an example of the broad reach of the Dog Bite Statute. If a resident’s or guest’s dog is in a “common area” – such as a hotel lobby, elevator, parking lot, or green space – the premises owner can be held liable for that dog’s conduct. That is why it is important for all pet-friendly establishments to require that dog owners leash their dogs. Businesses should enact leashing policies, weight/size restrictions, and ensure that such policies are regularly enforced.

garykung

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

OP has indicated this has nothing to do with California.

True. But in this case, it seems that the dog owner has given false or misleading information. So the hotel will eventually be obligated to tell you, through a subpoena.

Libel is a form of defamation. Are you sure you mean "libel" instead of "liable"?

Also - your example is not correct, California law or not. A bar owner can be liable because 1) the owner and/or its staffs allow a drunk person entering the premise; and/or 2) the bar serving excessive alcohol to make the person intoxicated.

Partially true. Even the article you cited mentioned the following:"Keep in mind, however, that if the defendant knows his dog is more aggressive than people might expect, he is under a duty to keep people safe from the dog. That means the provocation defense is less likely to be successful if the circumstances were such that the defendant should have warned the plaintiff or otherwise made the situation safe."

It was a pit bull we are talking about. So the provocation defense would not work as much as you believe, as pit bulls are generally more aggressive than others.

knownothing

seri: liable
I only know CA law as own a hotel there and have been sued and removed from suit as we tell dog owners they must be leased (even ADA allows) and are strict regarding it.
Again apples and oranges. If bar tender keeps serving drunk it is similar to letting non-leased dog
Actually the "provocation defense" works better for pit bulls then say a cocker. They are known to be more aggressive so if a person attempts to pet one - it is their fault.
We have several such suits per year.
Not too hard to fight "name of owner"

rbAA

Please, do let us know the name of the hotel so we can avoid it.

eastbysouthwest

That's a bit harsh. As long as the hotel is strict about dogs being on a leash, it's not really their fault if someone gets bitten.

I'd be curious to hear your perspective as an owner: do you advertise your hotel as pet friendly? Does it make business sense to be "pet friendly," or "pet free," or neither? Is there a large customer base that travels with their pets? Personally I would prefer a pet free hotel, though I probably would not pay a large premium for that.

Aren't there higher costs if you are "pet friendly," like cleaning, wear and tear, lawsuits etc.?

deac83

Certainly no attempted petting involved. The dog first lunged at my leg, I couldn't tell whether it was a sniffing or nipping, so I was trying to exit the elevator when the dog jump up at me. Owner was looking the other direction and saw none of this.

Hotel's published policy is dogs up to 40 lbs, I believe this dog was at least 50-60 lbs. I'm not a lawyer but if you have a stated policy and then don't enforce them I would think there is liability.

I have the owner's name because the police were called and there is a police report.

MSPeconomist

I'm horrified that the dog owner took so very long to supply the required documentation of rabies shots. This created a lot of unnecessary anxiety for the OP and IMO (IANAL) would be partial grounds for a lawsuit. I'm also concerned about whether the faxed (rather than original?) documents could be faked.

garykung

I am certainly not involved in those suits. But IIRC, it does not sound like the hotel was removed from the suit. But instead, a judgment (mostly a summary judgment) in favor of the hotel has been entered.

And indeed, if the premise has taken all necessary measures to avoid the incidents, then the hotel will not be liable. However, it does not sound like the case here. At the minimum, when the danger of a pit bull is well known, allowing pit bull to stay in the premise can been seen as a negligent act.

Yes. It also means that whoever control the premise can be liable for something that he/she may or may not do.

True. But again it will be a question of comparative negligence.

rbAA

Not really. I'm not into pet-friendly hotels given the risk of disease and bites, both dog and fleas. By the way, ever see two dog owners with dogs on leashes trying to counter the aggression of the confrontation. Maybe if the owners the size and strength of a bodybuilder, they could handle their (large) animal, but too often it results in an uncontrolled animal or two. No thanks. And, the OP faced a dog on a leash and look what happened.

Chewie

You can’t fake a rabies certification of vaccination. There is a unique ID on the form that ties the physical injection back to the pet and owner. This is also supposed to be registered with the state where the vaccine was actually administered.

Not sure why one state DoH did not contact the dog owner’s state to obtain vaccine verification?

knownothing

About 25% of guests have pets. Yes we charge a cleaning fee. We are strict about barking, leash and weight. From what OP posted, the hotel may have some liability (size of dog)