Dog owner to pay $1.5 million after Rottweiler attack

A St Ann videographer will have to fork out $1.5 million in damages plus interest, including plastic surgery costs, to pay a businesswoman after she was attacked and bitten by one of his dogs.

Last month, the Supreme Court awarded damages to the claimant, Leonie Lewars, who had filed a personal injury claim against Curtis Senior for negligence.

Lewars was attacked by four dogs and bitten multiple times on her left thigh and knee by a Rottweiler belonging to Senior while walking in her St Ann neighbourhood in Belle Air, Runaway Bay.

She was awarded $975,000 for general damages and $51,666.24 in special damages. Both awards attracted three per cent interest from May 16, 2016, to November 8, 2024.

Lewars also received a future medical expenses award of $450,000 to cover her plastic surgery for the scars on her thighs.

Senior, however, had denied negligence, claiming he did not leave the Rottweiler unchained. He explained that the Rottweiler freed itself and that this was the first time it had broken free from his chain.

However, Justice Tricia Hutchinson Smith, in the recently published judgment, found that Senior had breached his duty of care owed to the defendant to properly secure his dog.

“I find as a fact that the defendant failed to adequately secure the dog. Although he sought to assert that he would check the collar with his hands, Mr Senior made no mention of any maintenance of the chain and/or collar to ensure that the dog would be safely secured and the strength of both was preserved,” she said.

Lewars’ case is that, on May 16, 2016, she was walking along Orchid Drive at approximately 6:35 p.m. when four dogs coming from an unfenced property owned by Senior attacked her. One of the dogs, a Rottweiler, bit her on the left thigh, causing her to fall. She experienced excruciating pain and struggled to break free, requiring help from a neighbour who used an umbrella to assist in removing the dogs. She sought medical treatment at St Ann’s Bay Hospital, where she was administered injections and received stitches for the wound.

Lewars said she continued to experience pain and swelling in her thigh and knee and sought further treatment.

Last year, during the trial, she told the court that she was still affected by the attack and was unable to perform simple tasks that were never a challenge before.

She also told the court that, as a result of the incident, she lost the opportunity to earn CDN$450 weekly as a nursing aide in Canada. Additionally, she was the breadwinner in her family and has been unable to provide for them due to the constant pain in her thigh. Lewars did not provide any evidence to support her financial loss.

Senior, during his evidence, acknowledged that he owned two dogs, a Rottweiler and a mongrel, but both were secured in his yard.

However, he said that on the day of the incident, he heard the commotion and saw his Rottweiler coming through the gate and realised that it had got loose.

Senior said that after securing the dog, he assisted Lewars to the doctor and covered her medical bill.

Under cross-examination, he stated that he secured both dogs by tying them in his yard and had done so on the day before the incident.

“He maintained that the dogs are always chained before he goes to work at 7:30 a.m., and they are still chained when he returns from work. When asked whether he chained the dogs because of their propensity to bite, he responded by saying, ‘No, Sir, thieves broke into my house two times, so I chain them at the front,’” the judgment said.

Senior also denied that the chain was broken; instead, he said it was the collar, which he had tested the week before.

Senior also maintained that he had seen four mongrels along with his Rottweiler and although he had seen Lewars’ injuries, he did not witness the actual dog bite.

Attorney Sean Kinghorn argued on Lewars’ behalf that the evidence was overwhelmingly in support of the claim for negligence on the part of the defendant. He urged the court to accept his client’s evidence and find that liability for her injuries lies solely with Senior.

He submitted that there was no dispute that Senior was the owner of a Rottweiler dog, that Lewars was bitten by a Rottweiler which had escaped from where it had been tied.

Material inconsistency

Attorney-at-law Denise Senior-Smith argued that Lewars’ narrative about how she was bitten was not true, as she had stated in her claim particulars that it was four dogs, while in her witness statement and evidence on the stand, it was two. She contended that this was a material inconsistency, as she had not amended her pleading to address the issue.

The lawyer further contended that her client had made it clear that he did not see his dog biting Lewars and that it was her duty to prove her case of negligence, which was not done.

But the judge, in her assessment, said, “On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Rottweiler was not properly secured and was able to break free of its collar and chain in order to leave the yard and attack the claimant.

“This situation would not have occurred if the defendant had not been negligent. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the defendant had breached the duty of care owed to the claimant.”

Pointing to Lewars’ inconsistencies, the judge said, “I did not believe that the inconsistencies went to the root of her credibility, and I found her to be a truthful and reliable witness.”

Contradictory accounts

On the other hand, she said although Senior appeared to be a mature and intelligent man, she was not impressed with his demeanour, especially under cross-examination.

“His responses did not appear to be straightforward and he demonstrated a clear propensity to vary his account. His contradictory accounts of how the Rottweiler became loose also raised questions as to his veracity.

“His reliability was further undermined when he initially stated that the Rottweiler was a small dog just a foot high, then later conceded it was bigger than his mongrel dog and had managed to jump a wall, which was five or six feet high, to leave the yard,” Hutchinson Smith said.

Additionally, she said questions were also raised about his honesty as he had initially stated he had obtained the dog because he had been a victim of burglary but then denied that this was the reason.

“He also sought to describe the Rottweiler as a friendly puppy, all of which contradicted its effective use as a preventive measure against burglars who had broken into his house. His insistence that the dog was always restrained was also contrary to the purpose he gave for obtaining it, as a restrained dog at the front of his premises would have given little to no protection against burglars,” she noted.

Meanwhile, the judge, in granting the special award, relied on Lewars’ receipts for medical expenses.

She, however, denied Lewars’ request for $10,000 for transportation and $1.2 million in lost earnings due to a lack of documentary evidence.

The general damages granted accounted for the bite injuries, one of which had worsened due to an infection, along with the cost for future medical expenses, including the plastic surgery expense.

The court took into account the evidence of one of Lewars’ doctors, who reported that the bite to her thigh, a deep wound, was the worst and had gotten infected, resulting in continued severe pain to that region as well as the entire left lower limb.

Another doctor, in his report, said that Lewars had three scars on her thighs, which he described as unsightly, while noting that she would benefit from reconstructive plastic surgery to minimise the scarring. He indicated that despite the benefits of sophisticated plastic surgery techniques, Lewars would continue to bear the tell-tale signs of the incident.

The cost of the surgery was estimated at $450,000, inclusive of surgeon and anaesthetist fees, as well as operating costs.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com