Implications of Michigan’s Modified Comparative Fault Rule on Dog Bite Incidents

Comparative Fault: Taking the Power Away From Victims

Negligence in personal injury cases is handled differently between jurisdictions. In Michigan, a modified version of comparative fault is used — even for dog attacks. In other personal injury cases, this can be beneficial for injured parties. However, the implications of Michigan’s modified comparative fault rule on dog bite incidents are often disadvantageous.

Dog bite attacks frequently result in major injuries for victims. Unfortunately, Michigan’s approach to comparative negligence opens the door to reduced damages and attempts to blame the victim. However, this doesn’t mean that individuals attacked by dogs can’t secure substantial compensation. They just need to understand what they’re up against.

Potential for Reduced Compensation

Perhaps the most significant implication of Michigan’s modified comparative fault rule for dog bite cases is the potential for reduced compensation. Comparative fault means that injury victims can recover compensation even if they’re partially responsible for the harm suffered. However, it also means their financial recovery can be reduced by their own level of fault.

For instance, envision a scenario where the defendant or their insurer claims that the victim provoked the dog. Perhaps they’re saying that the claimant pulled on the dog’s tail. If a jury believes this, they may assign partial fault to the victim. At this point, potential economic compensation will be reduced by their own alleged level of fault.

Unfortunately, things can actually get worse in some situations.

Fully Barred From Securing Compensation

Imagine a situation where the jury believes a dog bite victim was 30% at fault for their injuries. Perhaps they’re convinced that the victim was taunting the dog. In this scenario, a court award for $1 million in damages would be reduced by 30% – meaning the full award amount would only be $700,000. However, things change once the 50% threshold is reached.

Under Michigan’s modified comparative fault rule, dog bite claims where the victim is determined to be 50% or more at fault are not eligible for compensation. Even if the dog owner’s negligence played a role in the injury, being at least half at fault bars victims from any financial recovery. For this reason, it’s critical to be very careful when discussing your case with insurers.

Effects on Defense Strategies

The preferred defense strategy in any personal injury case is to show that the defendant is not liable for the damages they’re accused of causing. However, such arguments will not always be practical. That’s why utilizing shared responsibility arguments is another key implication of Michigan’s comparative fault rule in dog bite cases.

The defense will obviously argue that the accused individual shares no fault whenever possible. When the defendant clearly acted negligently, though, the strategy will shift to proving culpability on the part of the injury victim. The defense will use state law to argue for reduced damages when issues such as provocation, trespassing, and ignoring warnings exist.

Increased Importance on Evidence and Documentation

Under modified comparative fault rules in Michigan, dog bite cases depend heavily on the evidence and documentation available. Of course, the same could be said about personal injury claims under any other negligence rule. However, the implications of shared responsibility arguments make gathering substantial evidence even more critical.

Proper documentation can make or break a dog bite claim under modified comparative negligence rules. Without proper documentation, insurers may not engage in settlement negotiations in good faith. Even worse, they are likely to push for litigation if they believe doing so might create hardship and force victims into an unfavorable settlement agreement.

Witness statements, video/photographic evidence, and even expert testimony from animal behaviorists can prove critical when trying to establish fault.

Multi-Party Complexity

The implications of Michigan’s modified comparative fault rule for dog bite cases become even more complex in multi-party claims. For instance, envision a scenario where a parent is suing because their child got bitten. If the child allegedly provoked the dog, their negligence could be compounded by the parent’s alleged negligence of not monitoring the child around the animal.

Comparative negligence doesn’t merely exist in two-party cases. For instance, if a person drives drunk and injures someone, the drunk driver and any alcohol establishment that served them could be held liable. A jury may decide the driver and establishment are both 50% at fault. A similar scenario can compound fault percentages for dog-bite victims.

Potential Deterrent to Filing Claims

Perhaps the most unfortunate reality related to modified comparative fault in Michigan dog bite cases is the deterrent it creates for victims. Even if someone suffers serious injuries when attacked by an animal, they may believe they’re not entitled to compensation due to their own actions. This has left many people dealing with medical expenses and other losses alone.

However, this is one of the situations where modified comparative negligence is somewhat beneficial. Even if you believe you’re responsible for the dog bite, you may still be entitled to compensation. The important thing is not to discuss your own fault with insurers, and don’t make assumptions about your own liability. Allow a legal professional to handle such issues.

Increased Need for Legal Representation

An important hallmark of the American legal system is that everyone is entitled to represent themselves. From dog bite cases to criminal prosecution, no citizen is required to secure legal representation. However, failing to do so in a comparative negligence state — particularly one with modified rules, like Michigan – can greatly harm your chance at compensation.

The simple fact is that defendants and their insurers don’t have to prove a lack of negligence on the part of the defendant. They just have to show that shared responsibility exists, and if they can meet the 50% threshold of comparative fault, then nothing else matters. This is why dog bite victims — whether they suffered minor harm or catastrophic injuries — should seek an attorney.

At Sigal Law Firm, we can help you understand the implications of Michigan’s modified comparative fault rules for your dog bite case and help you fight for justice. Contact us at 248-671-6794 to schedule your free consultation.