Opinion
No. CV 09-5025518 S
November 4, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter was tried by the court on October 13, 2010. The evidence disclosed that the plaintiffs resided at 1020 Townsend Avenue in New Haven on July 18, 2008. Later that afternoon they were walking on the sidewalk and were passing the house at 908 Townsend Avenue when the front door suddenly opened and a large white dog came out and was running down the front path toward them. The dog jumped on Mr. Ayala, scratching his arm, and then jumped on Mrs. Ayala knocking her to the ground and biting her on the left arm and left foot.
According to plaintiff's Exhibit 6, a form of the Connecticut Animal Control Division, the dog is described as a "Bulldog/Pitbull mix" and the owner is Frank Iannotti, 908 Townsend Avenue. The court finds that both Joanne and Frank Iannotti were co-owners and keepers of the dog which bit Mrs. Ayala and scratched Mr. Ayala.
The testimony revealed that the dog was placed in a "red truck" by Mr. Iannotti who drove away with the dog, after suggesting to the Ayalas that they not call the police. Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 is the "case incident report" of the New Haven Department of Police Service which documents a visit on July 19, 2010 by the police to 908 Townsend Avenue, and their interview with Frank Iannotti who informed the police that "the dog involved was at his girlfriend's house located in West Haven." Neither Mr. or Mrs. Iannotti testified in this case.
Connecticut General Statutes § 22-357 provides: "If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or, if the owner or keeper is a minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass, or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog."
Thus, in the absence of any evidence that Mr. or Mrs. Ayala were committing a trespass or other tort, or were teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog, the court concludes that the defendants are liable for such damages as were caused by the dog to Mr. and Mrs. Ayala. All that you can attribute to Mr. and Mrs. Ayala's activity as they were passing 908 Townsend Avenue was that they were walking on the public sidewalk returning to their home at 1020 Townsend Avenue.
The purpose of imposing strict liability on dog owners and/or keepers for injuries caused by their dogs to the persons or property of others is "that one keeps a dog at one's peril; that the owner's knowledge of the character of the dog, as either vicious or otherwise is not important; that the owner is liable for injury done by it on all occasions except when the injury is incurred by one while that person is committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing or abusing the dog . . ." Wroniak v. Ayala, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 544499 (June 13, 1995, Sheldon, J.) ( 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 328, 328), Pittman v. Berkowitz, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 364727 (November 2, 1995, Zoarski, J.) ( 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 368, 367).
The court must now determine the amount of economic damages to award the plaintiff that was not covered by a third-party payer which is not an easy task, as all charges and credits are contained in the Yale New Haven Hospital statements in plaintiff's Exhibit 5. The court finds that a collateral source reduction in the amount of $11,948.82 consisting of Anthem Blue Cross payments and "Adj. Blue Care" credits should be reduced from the Yale New Haven bill. Furthermore, as to any balance remaining on said bills, the hospital shows charges between the dates of 7/18/08 and 2/19/09 as showing a zero balance; 7/21/08 to 5/12/09 a zero balance; 7/24/08 to 8/28/09 zero balance; and 7/28 to 11/28/09 a zero balance. However, the hospital statements show hospital's receipt of ten "patient payments of $25.00 each above the zero balances evidence that the plaintiff paid $240.00 on account of said bills."
Said bills tell another story that Anita Ayala was administered a tetanus injection on 7/18/08; a rabies injection on 7/21/08; a rabies vaccination on 7/24/08 and another on 7/28/08 along with a second tetanus injection on said date; and a third tetanus immunization and fourth rabies inoculation on 8/2/08.
The evidence disclosed that the dog attack and bite in this case has caused Mrs. Ayala to have a deep-seated fear of dogs which she did not have prior to this attack. This fear has interfered with her daily walks in their neighborhood with her husband which both take as a form of exercise at their advanced ages.
The court visualized the arm and hand of Mrs. Ayala and, fortunately, the multiple bites have healed and do not present disfiguring scarring. Count 2 of the complaint claims that as a result of the dog attack her husband David "lost the society and companionship of his wife during the period of her recuperation" and that he has been affected by the constant fear of his wife when walking with her in the neighborhood.
Based on the above, judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff Anita Ayala to recover against the defendants as owners and keepers of said dog under the first count of said complaint as follows:
35,000.00
Economic Damages $ 250.00 Non-Economic Damages $ Total Damages: $35,250.00Plaintiff David Ayala may recover judgment as against the defendants under count two of the complaint as against said defendants as follows:
Non-Economic Damages in the sum of $8,000.