Sacramento Woman Viciously Bitten By A Dog, Part 1 of 8

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this dog bite/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff SANDY WHITE (“White”) will move this Court for an Order granting a New Trial/ JNOV against Defendant DIANA TOPP (“Topp”) pursuant to sections 629, 657 and 662.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the following grounds:

1. The court, as a matter of law, made an error in of law in granting defendant’s motion for non-suit related to plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action (during the pendency of the trial; and
2. That the court instruction to jury question #1 was misleading and did not specifically address the question posed by the jury; and

3. The preponderance of the evidence clearly indicated that the jury should have reached a different result regarding the strict liability of the defendant in this action.

This case is about a dog bite incident, which occurred on or about April 13, 2007. Plaintiff, Sandy White, was walking her dog on a leash at approximately seven p.m.. While walking on the sidewalk of defendant’s premises located on Maddox Dr., Sacramento, CA, defendant’s dog suddenly attacked plaintiff twice knocking her to the ground. As a result of the attack, plaintiff, Sandy White sustained injuries to her upper right arm, right hand, left ankle, permanent scarring and disfigurement. The defendants are claiming that the dog that caused the injuries to plaintiff wasn’t their dog and it had never been to defendant’s property before the date of the incident, and therefore they are not responsible for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

A trial by jury was held in this matter on March 25, 2007, and at the conclusion of 4 days of testimony on the plaintiff’s behalf (and 15 minutes on the defendant’s behalf), the jury, in less than one hour after the court’s instruction to jury question number #1 & #2, came back with a verdict that indicated that the defendant was not strictly liable for the injuries sustained in the dog bite attack of the plaintiff, White. Further, the jury was not even permitted to address the issue of premises liability as the court granted defendant’s motion for non-suit, without adequate basis, during the pendency of this trial. (See Part 2 of 8.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information