COSTLY DOG ATTACK

A Manchester maintenance contractor who was mauled by two pit bull terriers at a company’s premises in August 2010 has been awarded $1.2 million in general damages, plus interest and special damages, after the Supreme Court found the company negligent.

Justice Althea Jarrett ruled that V. & M. Import & Export Company Limited failed to properly secure its guard dogs, which attacked Alrick Knight while he was lawfully on the property. The court awarded Knight $1.2 million in general damages and $24,998.57 in special damages.

In a judgment delivered last month, Justice Jarrett rejected the company’s claims that Knight was a trespasser or contributorily negligent for allegedly ignoring warning signs about the dogs. She found that the defendant owed Knight a duty of care and breached that duty.

“The claimant has succeeded in proving, on a balance of probabilities, that there were two dogs on the defendant’s premises, that the defendant was the owner of these dogs, that he was lawfully on those premises, and that the defendant owed him a duty of care to ensure his safety,” the judge said.

The incident occurred on August 29, 2010, when Knight and his wife were taken to the company’s premises by transport manager L. Goldbourne to pack yams and perform maintenance work, including changing oil in a forklift. Knight testified that Goldbourne sent him to the back of the premises to retrieve a container, at which point he was attacked near the back gate by two pit bulls.

MULTIPLE INJURIES

Knight sustained multiple deep bite wounds to his arms, legs, and chest, along with tissue loss to his upper lip. Medical evidence showed that the injuries required plastic reconstructive surgery and caused prolonged pain and discomfort. Plastic surgeon Dr Patrick Logan described the injuries as extensive but said surgery was successful, leaving minimal scarring.

Knight’s attorneys, Aon Stewart and Ashley Ximines, argued that the company breached its common-law duty of care by allowing the dogs to roam freely and failing to restrain them, despite their use as guard dogs. They contended that serious injury was foreseeable if the dogs were not properly secured.

The company, represented by Laurel Gregg, denied liability, claiming Knight entered a restricted area without permission, that only one dog was present and secured, and that warning signs were posted. The defence also argued that Goldbourne was not an employee and had no authority to invite Knight onto the premises.

Justice Jarrett rejected these arguments, finding that Goldbourne was the company’s transport manager and had authority to invite Knight. She also accepted Knight’s evidence that two dogs were involved, noting inconsistencies in the defence’s case and the severity of the injuries.

“I believe that the nature and extent of the claimant’s injuries are consistent with his evidence that he was attacked by two and not one dog,” the judge said.

The court found no reliable evidence that warning signs were posted or that the dogs were secured at the time. Justice Jarrett also dismissed contributory negligence, ruling that the company failed to ensure the dogs were kept away from lawful visitors.

In assessing damages, the court considered the seriousness of the injuries, the need for surgery, and the lasting impact on Knight’s quality of life. The $1.2 million award for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities carries three per cent annual interest from January 21, 2015, to January 30, 2026.

Knight was awarded $24,998.57 for proven medical and related expenses, plus interest. His claim for $320,000 in loss of earnings was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com