Amend original complaint (small claims)

[roadblockx]

Jurisdiction

Kentucky

Greetings. After a neighbor's pit-bull attacked my chocolate lab and caused $1k in vet bills, I sent a letter to neighbor ("Ann") asking for them to cover the costs. The letter went unanswered for 30 days so I filed a small claims complaint against them. About a week before small claims court date, I received a letter from the bankruptcy court stating the defendant had filed chapter 7 (along with debts from many other financial institutions).
I spoke with a bankruptcy attorney and understand getting the small claims case to proceed won't yield a positive gain. However Ann, the defendant, is in her mid 20's and lives with her boyfriend's parents who own the home.
With that knowledge, I would like to abandon the claim against Ann and go after the homeowners except I'm not entirely sure how to do this though. I believe I need to amend the original complaint to include the homeowners, then file the amended complaint and serve the homeowners but I don't know how to amend the complaint.
Any advice/assistance would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

Greetings. After a neighbor's pit-bull attacked my chocolate lab and caused $1k in vet bills, I sent a letter to neighbor ("Ann") asking for them to cover the costs. The letter went unanswered for 30 days so I filed a small claims complaint against them. About a week before small claims court date, I received a letter from the bankruptcy court stating the defendant had filed chapter 7 (along with debts from many other financial institutions).
I spoke with a bankruptcy attorney and understand getting the small claims case to proceed won't yield a positive gain. However Ann, the defendant, is in her mid 20's and lives with her boyfriend's parents who own the home.
With that knowledge, I would like to abandon the claim against Ann and go after the homeowners except I'm not entirely sure how to do this though. I believe I need to amend the original complaint to include the homeowners, then file the amended complaint and serve the homeowners but I don't know how to amend the complaint.
Any advice/assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Where did the attack happen?

 

[roadblockx]

Zigner, thank you for the reply. My apologies for leaving this critical information out.
Shepherdsville, KY (40165)
Bullitt County
In the subdivision there. Dog ran 50 yards to where we were walking, after breaking from the owner's leash. Took 4 adults to pull 135lb pit-bull from my lab.

 

[zddoodah]

I spoke with a bankruptcy attorney and understand getting the small claims case to proceed won't yield a positive gain.

Not only that, it would violate federal law for the small claims case to proceed without first obtaining an order from the bankruptcy court.

I would like to abandon the claim against Ann and go after the homeowners except I'm not entirely sure how to do this though.

Why do you think Ann's landlord is liable? Not really an issue in small claims court, but suing someone without a viable legal theory could result you getting sued for malicious prosecution.

I believe I need to amend the original complaint to include the homeowners, then file the amended complaint and serve the homeowners but I don't know how to amend the complaint.

No one here is familiar with small claims procedure in Kentucky. I'd suggest going down to the courthouse and asking if there is a small claims advisor or if there is any written material. If your court has a website, check it first.

 

[roadblockx]

Why do you think Ann's landlord is liable? Not really an issue in small claims court, but suing someone without a viable legal theory could result you getting sued for malicious prosecution.

Completely understand/respect the question and your position. The idea (suing homeowner) was posed to me by an injury attorney who practices in Jefferson County. They stated that in KY, the homeowner is providing a place for the dog to stay which makes them part owners of the dog. Similar to landlord's exposure to liability when they know a tenant has a dog, is aware of the breed and if dangerous and landlord has the ability/power to remove the dog. In this case, the owner of the house was holding the leash to the 135lb dog, knew the dog was there and that the breed was dangerous and had the ability/power to remove Ann/dog.

I appreciate your time and will look to contact a local attorney for how to proceed with amending the complaint. The local small claims handbook is drastically lacking anything related to how to amend the complaint (actually doesn't even mention that wording). It's extremely limited.

 

[justblue]

Was the attack reported to Animal Control? If so, what was the finding/outcome?

 

[roadblockx]

Was the attack reported to Animal Control? If so, what was the finding/outcome?

Yes, I reported it to them and they stated both dogs had to be quarantined at home for 10 days. The police report documented that their dog, along with the testimony of an independent witness, ran the 50'ish yards from their front door to where we were walking our lab.

 

[adjusterjack]

In this case, the owner of the house was holding the leash to the 135lb dog, knew the dog was there and that the breed was dangerous and had the ability/power to remove Ann/dog.

File a separate lawsuit against the homeowner who couldn't control the dog.

If he's smart he'll turn it over to his homeowner's insurance and his insurance may pay you just to get rid of a small claim.

No guarantees, of course.

 

[roadblockx]

File a separate lawsuit against the homeowner who couldn't control the dog.

If he's smart he'll turn it over to his homeowner's insurance and his insurance may pay you just to get rid of a small claim.

No guarantees, of course.

Much appreciated! Proceeding in that direction. Wish you all the best!

 

[zddoodah]

in KY, the homeowner is providing a place for the dog to stay which makes them part owners of the dog.

I'm not in Kentucky, but that sounds absurd on its face.

Similar to landlord's exposure to liability when they know a tenant has a dog, is aware of the breed and if dangerous and landlord has the ability/power to remove the dog.

A landlord does not become liable for injury caused by a tenant's dog just because the landlord "knows" information that a certain breed may be "dangerous." Liability would be predicated on knowing that a particular dog has aggressive tendencies. It has nothing to do with a particular breed having a bad reputation.

In this case, the owner of the house was holding the leash to the 135lb dog, knew the dog was there and that the breed was dangerous and had the ability/power to remove Ann/dog.

The owner was holding the leash? That's an ENTIRELY different issue. Or were you being metaphorical?

If the owner was physically in control of the dog at the time of the attack, then there may be a viable basis for suing, which would get the owner's insurance carrier into play.

P.S. Most pitbulls don't tip the scales at more than 60#, so I have some concerns about your story.

 

[roadblockx]

I'm not in Kentucky, but that sounds absurd on its face.



A landlord does not become liable for injury caused by a tenant's dog just because the landlord "knows" information that a certain breed may be "dangerous." Liability would be predicated on knowing that a particular dog has aggressive tendencies. It has nothing to do with a particular breed having a bad reputation.



The owner was holding the leash? That's an ENTIRELY different issue. Or were you being metaphorical?

If the owner was physically in control of the dog at the time of the attack, then there may be a viable basis for suing, which would get the owner's insurance carrier into play.

P.S. Most pitbulls don't tip the scales at more than 60#, so I have some concerns about your story.

Again, I appreciate your time and opinion. BS'ing details in the story or exaggerating them doesn't help me in any event. Asking for help on a forum like this requires I provide the most accurate details possible, otherwise the advice I receive is trash (trash in, trash out). I understand your position but I don't benefit from providing you (the forum) smoke. Seems silly to ask for help but bluff those I'm asking.

The lb estimation was based on the LEO's opinion included in his police report and breed being a bulldog/pit-bull mix (dog's above normal size, probably from being kept in a house with limited exercise). The dog's owners were also heavier so I'm guessing a healthy lifestyle isn't affecting just the dog. Any concerns you have about the dogs weight are with the LEO's observation although under oath, I would say the dog wasn't a pure pitbull breed but was easily that weight/size. My lab is 85-90 and hunts/hikes with me often but the other dog had a good bit more size on him. My OP didn't get into the weeds on the breed as the question was a legal procedural question, not to the dna of the dog. I know everyone's time on here is limited and I didn't want to waste it on the dog's details.

Again, can't address your concerns regarding civil law in KY. Not sure what state your licensed in but I would tell you what I heard from different attorneys in this county/state regarding liability of the landlord. Please review and let me know if this helps respond to your statement "A landlord does not become liable for injury caused by a tenant's dog":

Kentucky has a statute, KRS 258.235(4), that creates strict liability for a dog's owner for any damage caused by the dog. Strict liability means the owner is liable regardless of any other factors, even if he did nothing wrong. The definition of owner was found in KRS 258.095(5), which included every person permits the dog to remain on or about premises owned or occupied by him. Until 2012, the courts had interpreted this statute to exclude landlords from the definition of "owner". As a result, a landlord did not was not strictly liable for dog bites on his rental property, but rather was only liable if he was negligent in relation to the dog.


The Benningfield decision in 2012 changed this. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that because when a landlord permits a dog to be housed on property that it owns, even temporarily, he qualifies as the dog's "owner" under KRS 258.095(5) and is therefore strictly liable for any damage caused by that dog on the property or within an arm's length of the property. Kentucky's New Dog-Bite Law: What Landlords Need to Know

I did a google search which yielded that information but is consistent with everything I've been told by those attorneys here. Absurd or not, hope it helps. Landlord as it relates to this situation owns the house and occupies it. (Although that new law looks to be a minefield for landlords who allow renters/tenants to have dogs)

Lastly, to your question about the leash. Yes, homeowner was absolutely holding the 10lb leash which snapped when her 135lb dog pulled on it. The leash was still in her hand when she arrived at the dogfight and was noted by the independent witness in his statement. I actually didn't notice it and only realized it after reading their statement.

 

[Zigner]

Disregard

 

[army judge]