34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Dog bite victim seeks $95,000 from Foxboro
Top Headlines "My client sustained serious injuries and damages as a result of the willful, wanton and/or reckless conduct of both the Board of Selectmen and the conservation commission in connection with their approval, operation and management" of the dog park, attorney Joseph F. Krowski wrote the boards Tuesday on behalf of Edmund J. Jones of Plainville. The $95,000 ticket comes a week after a separate $450,000 demand by abutters and other residents alleging a variety of civil rights and other violations attributed to the dog park's approval and operation. Land Court Judge Keith Long, in a conference call with opposing attorneys Monday, backed the conservation commission's requirement that all visitors to the dog park, with or without a pet, must sign in, according to town attorney Sam Perkins. The judge did not, however, address the monetary claim which attorney Edward Valanzola made to the commission and selectmen for alleged violations of the rights of 18 abutters and neighbors. "I think it's time everyone should step back and stop trying to provoke problems that don't come out of the normal operation of the dog park," Perkins said. Valanzola and some of his clients entered the park on April 17 and declined to sign in or to show identification as required under a rule approved by the conservation commission. The judge in the phone conference this week rejected Valanzola's claim that the sign-in rule exceed the judge's own previous orders, which stated that "dog owners" must sign in. In the Feb. 10 biting incident, the monetary demand comes from a different lawyer and plaintiff. Krowski's six-page injury claim notice to the two town boards gives a detailed version of how Jones, a senior at King Philip Regional High School, was bitten at the Foxboro Dog Park, his injuries and pain, his family's efforts to obtain medical attention, his time-consuming trips to Norwood Hospital for a series of rabies shots and medical costs. Citing public records, it contends that the two boards and dog park co-founders, Deborah Cunniff and Heather Harding, "did not take seriously the risks associated with the operation of an off-leash dog park. Krowski wrote that legal action will be taken if the town fails to settle Jones's claim "in a timely fashion." Among other warnings to town officials who were contemplating allowing a privately run, off-leash dog area at Cocasset River Park, Krowski wrote, health agent George Young in a June, 2006 memo cited the potential for dog bites. "What is the liability to the Town (as they are owners of the site) if the incidents of dog bites becomes a problem?" Young asked in his memo, two months before the park opened. "I don't wish to sound like a skeptic but I'm just doing due diligence relative to the risk assessment."
Post Your Comments kingston73 wrote on May 31, 2008 1:32 PM: " Rick, Again I say, what's the relation? You aren't making a very good argument, why is it the towns responsibility to pay? The signs out front fully explain the rules, it's not like the town has opened a shooting range for the public to use. Just curious, if your kid was skating at the skate park and broke a leg, are you going to sue the town? Is it the town's fault that your child chose to do that? Like the original poster said, this "kid", (young adult, teen, whatever you call him) chose to go into the park, nobody forced him into it. Unfortunately, its his own fault he didn't get any info from the people before they left. It's the same situation as a traffic accident, if the kid had gotten hit by a car in the town center and failed to get a plate or driver info, he'd be in the same situation, and the town would again NOT be responsible. I think its said that we live in a country in which people are steadily shrugging off personal responsibility, its always somebody elses fault. " rick wrote on May 31, 2008 8:06 AM: " Kingston, They're suing the town because the dog owner took off and they couldn't track them down. They're looking to recover for their incovenience/pain & suffering and presumably to send a messge to the town that they need to be responsible for what goes on at this park " rick wrote on May 31, 2008 8:03 AM: " melissamcphee: of course you'll be reading this, you're so full of yourself you can't help yourself. Anyone who would say, and I quote: "Anyone who can't agree is insulting me" and follow it up with: "i made my point and i am moving on..." obviously doesn't have an ounce of self-awareness. Count how many times "I" and "me" show up in your posts. I didn't miss any point about you being insulted, you said it yourself. We didn't sue because it was our own dog who bit our daughter. We put the dog down immediately, and if it was someone else's dog we'd have sued. " melissaleemcphee wrote on May 30, 2008 3:11 PM: " oh rick, i am not insulted because you obviously missed the point- if a little girl can handle a bite to the face without suing, how come this adult can't get over himself and move on...it's not about me, it's the fact that people will do anything for money no matter how stupid they make themselves look. if you would like to reply go ahead and waste your time i won't be reading i made my point and i am moving on... " kingston73 wrote on May 30, 2008 1:16 PM: " johnr: So you've taken a poll of the entire town and know for a fact that a "majority" of the town doesn't want the park? Your arguments make zero sense, just because you don't understand something and don't like something doesn't mean the rest of the world has the same views. You know what? I have a difficult time understanding why somebody would go play golf, but I'm not trying to get all the golf courses closed because I understand that we here in the US have individual freedoms. Please, tell me, how is this park affecting you in any way? Other than the fact that the frivilous lawsuite brought on by these abutters will probably end up costing you money in taxes. And additional legal actions??? WHAT did anybody do wrong? I guess you enjoy being ignorant, because if you took the time to actually look into the facts you would see that the only thing anybody has done wrong is the shouting, threats and insults by one of the abutters. And finally, what "you" are you talking about? WHO is running and hiding? Educate yourself before you attempt to argue with others, ok? Rick: I can understand what you're saying about making the dog owner pay for medical expenses, but how is that the same as suing the town? I fail to see the relation... " jose21 wrote on May 28, 2008 3:34 PM: " kyraskye why do you keep asking about photos? Are you a pet detective? " johnr wrote on May 28, 2008 2:02 PM: " Being a long time Foxboro resident I am having a very difficult time understanding why the individuals responsible for establishing the dog park did so...I have an even more difficult time understanding why the selectmen continue to support it. Are the selectmen suppose to support the majority of the Foxboro residence? The majority of Foxboro residence don't want the dog park and don't need the dog park so why is it still open ??? I would like to know if there may be additional legal actions that can be taken against the selectmen and the individuals responsible above and beyond the law suits in place ? All of you should be held responsible for any and all problems...it is always easy to stand and agree until something goes wrong and then you all run and hide... " pens86 wrote on May 27, 2008 2:19 PM: " How about the fact that the owners of the dog who bit the teenager left the park and that is why he had to get all the rabies shots. Visiting the doctor and taking all that time out of your day is not easy. You should think about how you would feel if you had to go back and forth many times to get these shots and to go to appointments. Also how can you let your dog bite someone and then leave? " rick wrote on May 27, 2008 6:47 AM: " Reason, I was going by what we were told to us a couple of years ago when our daughter was bitten. Luckly the dog was quarantined and she didn't need to have the shots. If things have changed for the better that's great, but I don't think the point of the lawsuit was only about the bite itself but also about the followup medical issues and headaches/inconvenience involved and to send a message to the dog park (town) that they better keep the place safe. " reason wrote on May 26, 2008 5:52 PM: " Describing the rabies shots are extremely painful is an exaggeration. In the past they may have been but now it is a few shots of antibodies around the bite and 5 vaccination shots over the next month. These shots are no worse then a flu shot. Some people, like any drug, have a reaction to the antibodies or vaccination. " rick wrote on May 25, 2008 6:34 AM: " kyraskye, he had to go through the rabies protocol which is a series of extremely painful injections over a period of several doctors visits (around ten, I believe). This isn't just about a scrape and a bump, it's a fairly serious medical issue. " kyraskye wrote on May 24, 2008 11:26 PM: " As I asked earlier, does anyone have photos of these so called 'dog bites' from within 12-24 hours of the incident? Did he miss school due to the 'dog bite'? Does anyone know why this incident was even brought to light? He himself didn't report it and only came forward after there was a huge blow up in court about a 'child' being bitten. This is looking like another person or persons looking for money from something that they need to take responsibility for themselves. If anyone gets bit at a park you can bet that they are sure to get the information of the person who owns the dog. The town or any part of the town offices are not responsible for a persons actions other than their own. The town can not be sued about this- It is the owners responsibility to insure that after an incident like this one that he gets the others information. This is a stupid thing for his family to be doing, and I feel sorry for him and the ridicule he is going through because of this (If any if people are smart) " rick wrote on May 24, 2008 6:48 PM: " Brwmstr, ever trip over your own feet and were so embarrassed you got up, brushed your self off and said: "I'm ok, I'm ok" only to go home and realize you really hurt your knee or something? People's initial reaction in the heat of the moment may betray their true injury. On top of that, I wonder if the kid understood what he was going to have to go through with the rabies shots. There are several of them (ten, spaced out over so many days I believe) and they're extremely painful. I believe the lawsuit was for pain & suffering and for the inconvenience of going to multiple doctor visits, ect. Also, lawsuits serve to deter people from certain actions. For example, if you have an aggressive dog, don't bring him to the dog park. If it were my kid going through the rabies protocol, you'd bet the dog owner would be paying dearly for my my kid's pain & suffering & my inconvenience. " rick wrote on May 24, 2008 6:51 AM: " Melissamechpee says: "As someone who was bitten in the face by a german shepard at age seven,i can say a grown boy who has to sue over a bite less serious is absolutely pathetic. Anyone who can't agree is insulting me" Melissa, consider yourself insulted because I disagree with you completely and that's about the dumbest comment I have read on here. Your being bitten in the face when you were seven doesn't make you the ultimate arbiter of whether a dogbite claim is legitimate or not. Get over yourself, it's not all about you. " dogsrule wrote on May 22, 2008 9:54 AM: " Certainly there is a time and place to sue. I happend to be a lawyer so am definetly not against lawsuits under the right circumstances. This situation was not one where the dog agressively attacked the boy suing. He walked into a dog park where signs were posted noting the risk. He then proceeded to place his hand in between two fighting dogs. He is not suing the dog owner - he is actually not suing anyone. He has just threatened to sue the town. Very big difference between this situation and one you have described. " jose21 wrote on May 21, 2008 12:40 PM: " I would argue that not everyone that is bit by a dog puts their hands in the dogs face. I agree, people sue over everything these days, but if I'm attacked by someone elses dog, why should I have to pay medical expenses? Sometimes there is a need to sue, even if it insults Melissa. " dogsrule wrote on May 21, 2008 12:26 PM: " Probably because Melissa nor her parents decided to sue the family or town of the dog where she was bit. I think what she is trying to say is that it has become a lawsuit mentality world. No matter what happens people always try to figure out a way to sue someone for it. I too was bit (and actually forgot about it till reading Melissas post) by a small but vicious dog when I was a child. My parents never even thought to sue. I learned from it that you do not put your face or hand near a dog unless you know it is friendly. That is something I taught my child from the time he was young to avoid the RISK of a dog bite. Too bad the parents of this boy did not teach him the same thing. " jose21 wrote on May 19, 2008 12:41 PM: " melissaleemcphee - how is it an insult to you? Because you got bit in the face everyone else should just take the bite and deal with it? I'm not refering to this issue, just your comments... " kingston73 wrote on May 17, 2008 9:56 PM: " triborohooligan: What the ***L are you talking about? Wild animals? Research evolution of humans, you will learn that canines in some form have been living with people since people evolved, at least 20-30 thousand years ago. As for all the other posters, I have to agree with you all. Why can dozens of others towns manage a dog park with ZERO drama or issues? Even large cities like Providence have them and don't have a fraction of the issues foxboro has had. It all comes back to the NEIGHBORS (bakers, conlons, a certain selectman whose name rhymes with flasher...whatever you want to call them) The loudest voice with the most money apparently has the most power in Foxboro... " melissaleemcphee wrote on May 17, 2008 1:04 PM: " As someone who was bitten in the face by a german shepard at age seven,i can say a grown boy who has to sue over a bite less serious is absolutely pathetic. Anyone who can't agree is insulting me and yes, it is disgusting that some people are so money hungry that they don't care if they devastate families just to get a couple bucks when their injuries will heal just the same without the money...so disgusting... " dogsrule wrote on May 14, 2008 8:10 AM: " It's not a Zoo with "wild animals" It's a dog park. Last time I checked dogs are domestic animals and not wild. I suppose if your kid fell of a swing at the playground you'd sue too. Don't take the risk and then expect someone else to pay for it. Sue happy people are making a mockery out of our justice system. It's disgusting. " triborohooligan wrote on May 13, 2008 11:07 AM: " Maybe people shouldn't try to domesticate wild animals. In my opinion, 95k is far too low. If my child was bit, even in some ridculous park, I'd sue for three times that. " KyraSkye wrote on May 7, 2008 7:01 PM: " Sorry- Off Leash- not off lease. " KyraSkye wrote on May 7, 2008 7:00 PM: " I would be very interesting to know if- and see- there were photos taken of the scratches/dog bites with in 12 hours of the incident. A picture says a 1,000 words. I can not sue someone if my dog is involved in a fight, and i move to break it up, do not make the appropriate actions to separate the dogs and my hand lands in the wrong place. I have be in a situation like that, and I choose to ensure that the dog was up to date on shots, secure the animals then deal with the bites. Some people need to grow up and get over themselves- If you go somewhere and there are animals off lease or unrestrained there is an assumed risk, I don't care how stupid you are, you have to know that. " brwmstr wrote on May 7, 2008 10:31 AM: " It's amazing how peoples accounts change, once they start asking for money. If the young man was"on his knees wiping blood from his bites" then why would he say he was OK?? It's just this type of twisting of the facts, that drive all of the negative cooments about the park. He was asked if he was OK and he said he was. From all accounts and witnesses, the people then left the park, normally. They did not "run" out of the park and leave, wheels squealing. It is unfortunate that the young man did not collect the info from the other party, but he did not. Chalk this one up to a lesson well learned and move on. " dogtraveler wrote on May 7, 2008 8:49 AM: " In response to previous postings: Yes, dog park users understood that the dog owners assume all responsibility for their dogs actions while in the park. No, park users did not know that if said owners did not want to accept responsibility, in fact, they were in no way held accountable. Yes, dog park users voluntarily went to the park and understood the risk of injury. No, park users did not know that if bitten there would be no way to identify the dog or its owner to find out whether the dog was up-to-date on its shots. Yes, the young mans immediate response was yes when asked if he was o.k., as he was still on his knees wiping the blood away from the bites, not scratches, on his hand. No, park users do not expect the owners to literally run to their car and leave the park within 60 seconds of the incident, before the victim even has a chance to find out who they are. Yes, the young mans injuries were not major but until weve had twelve injections in one night, three of which are directly into open wounds, maybe we should think twice before using the word minor. " KyraSkye wrote on May 5, 2008 11:24 PM: " Hi all, At this point, to the best of my knowledge, this is not going to court- yet- this was a demand letter that was delivered by a lawyer, but it has not been filed in court, unless something has changed in the last few hours. I agree that every time I enter the park I am assuming all responsibility for my dog, and problems that she causes, and also for attaining all information if something should happen. There is a sign on the fence before you enter the park, and it was there before the park was closed, that says owners assume all risk and that Con Com and the town are not responsible for any injuries that happen. DOG OWNERS are fully responsible for the behavior of their dog(s). I could sue myself every time my cat scratches me!!! This is getting ridiculous!! We are following the rules- why can't they??? " parkuser wrote on May 5, 2008 3:36 PM: " I also believe that this "new" lawsuit is sad and another attempt to make a case to close the park.... Everytime I use the park, I know the risks. To sue the town and then to blame Debbie and Heather is over the top. No one forced him to take his dog there and it was his responsibility to get the information needed from the owners of the dog that scratched him. I hope his case gets laughed out of court. Another waste of our tax dollars. " brwmstr wrote on May 2, 2008 2:11 PM: " Yes, i can see how you might view it that way, if you didn't have all of the facts, and beleived everything you read in this newspaper. The fact is, the young man received three "scratches" while trying to break up a skirmish between his girlfriends dog and another dog (he punched that dog in the head). The owners of the other dog asked him if he was "all right" and he said "yes". Those are his own words (see Sun Chronicle article mid Feb.). The owners of the other dog then left the park. that is what you are suppose to do if your dog is aggressive in any way. The plaintiffs attorney, then embellished these facts so that a land judge, temporarily, closed the park, making it impossible to track down the owners of the other dog. To this day, the young man has never asked the dog park organizers for help in tracking down the other dogs owners. " mba wrote on May 2, 2008 1:49 PM: " i guess i do need help in understanding why every post starts with an smack. see i haven't seen that the young man or his parents are part of that group. i take this as he's looking for some accountability and if the owner won't do the right thing the only one left is the town, so i can understand why they got stuck in this but that doesn't mean they're all bad people, just like park users aren't all bad people. " brwmstr wrote on May 2, 2008 1:24 PM: " mba, what is up with you? You are the one in need of some understanding. This is the latest salvo in an orchestrated attempt of a few people to shut down this dog park. There is no hate coming from the park users. What you are sensing is the frustration over the constant lies and distortions by a select few, whose adgenda, it is, to close the park. This young mans' parents should be ashamed. " mba wrote on May 2, 2008 12:22 PM: " ouch, you need to be more understanding and not so hateful, nothing will get accomplished with this approach remember we all have to live together. " dogparkfan wrote on May 2, 2008 9:00 AM: " This young man VOLUNTARILY went to the dog park and sustained minor injuries as a result of HIS dog being involved in a dog fight. Whats next?? Maybe my son who sprained his ankle last week while VOLUNTARILY playing football for the town can sue for much more. Shame on you parents for setting a poor example for your son. " bluff114 wrote on May 1, 2008 5:49 PM: " I think this whole issue with this dog park is utterly rediculous. First of all, anyone entering into a dog park is taking the risk of injury upon themselves. I personally think dog parks are needed in this area so we may socialize our animals to people and other dogs. If our dogs were more socialized from puppies then we wouldn't be having issues with the park. As far as the neighbors go, get over it. Do some research on dog parks and you will find they are a wonderful thing to have. The city of Denver is full of dog parks and I have never been to one where there was any trouble. Dogs are like children and with the correct socialization they will get along with almost anyone. " dogsrule wrote on May 1, 2008 5:11 PM: " MBA - you obviously have no clue what your talking about. If you did you'd know that we have gone out of our way to do everything the opponents of the park have asked. We have never said no to any of their outrageous requests just "how can we work this out?" We searched for the dog who bit Mr. Jones and made a plea to the community for them to come forward so he would not have to get the rabies shots. Get a clue before posting about what you don't know. " mba wrote on May 1, 2008 3:46 PM: " you guys are so bitter and mean, maybe that's why there so many problems. It would be best if everyone sat down and worked everything out rather than be a hater. " dogsrule wrote on May 1, 2008 12:32 PM: " I agree My Two Cents - the sadder thing is that these "problems" are non-existent. Anyone who ACTUALLY goes to the park knows how it really is - a well run, clean, relatively quiet place where PEOPLE can take their dogs and let them free. The bite was misfortunate but it not the town's fault. Let us all re-read this boy's own words back in Feb via the Sun. It's just like a political campaign.. the majority of what you hear is B.S. " aircavalry37 wrote on May 1, 2008 11:00 AM: " this high schooler and his family are a shining example of how messed up this country is. if an individual enters a dog park that is posted " use at your own risk " that individual should understand the meaning of those words. to then try and hold the town or the park responsible for supposed pain and suffering is a joke. the only thing more messed up than the lawsuit is that he'll probably win! " MY TWO CENTS wrote on May 1, 2008 10:16 AM: " IT'S TO BAD THAT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE JUST WANTED TO DO SOMETHING GOOD IN FOXBORO FOR AREA RESIDENT AND PETS. THIS REALLY IS GETTING OUT OF HAD THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER OFF LEASH PARKS IN THE STATE AND THEY HAVE NOT HAD THIS MANY PROBLEMS :( " brwmstr wrote on May 1, 2008 9:40 AM: " "Adults and mature children who voluntarily encounter a known risk are usually deemed to have consented to the injuries they receive as a result of that particular risk. If you go to a no-leash dog park and you are injured by a dog, under circumstances other than a bite where the dog would not have injured you if it was leashed, then there is a very good argument that you assumed the risk. After all, you knew that leashes were optional at the park, but you went there anyway to take advantage of the same leash-optional law that resulted in your own injuries."-from dogbitelaw.com It is well posted at the park, use at your own risk. It is too bad, in this country, that people miss use the justice system. Anybody can sue anybody, but should they?? The bite was a response from a dog that was punched in the head by the 17 year old. It did not even require a single stitch. He was asked if he was "OK" by the biting dogs owner, and he replied that he was fine. Nice quote form George Young. He was mearly raising a valid point, that was addressed by counsel. The town is not responsible for dog bites at the dog park. The owner of the dog is. " dogsrule wrote on May 1, 2008 8:37 AM: " So much for not being a "foe" of the park! I believe his words are memoralized in this very newspaper. I agree with Harry - if my son hurts himself at the skatepark in Foxboro I can't sue. Sure I actually can but I wouldn't. I feel for his pain but it's not the town's fault. You take risks every day and there is not always someone to pay when you get hurt. And hello... $95,000!!! " Reason wrote on May 1, 2008 8:30 AM: " Didn't he make an earlier claim that the dog bite was no big deal or is this just an attempt to jump on the bandwagon and win the lawsuit lottery? " Harry Hindsight wrote on May 1, 2008 8:20 AM: " If this teenager was biten inside the dog park, then he had to have walked into an inclosed area. Unless he was thrown over the fence against his will, then he entered this secured area knowing that he would be putting himself at a possible risk. What's next, sueing for cleaning bills for poop on the sneaker. Oh wait, if I go to a Pawsox game and get hit by a foul ball, I can sue for my injury! Take me out to the ball game! " or
|
