Legal advice for an encounter with an unstable dog owner?
December 2, 2006 1:12 PM Subscribe
At the dog park yesterday, one of the regular dogs (let's call her Fido) attempted to start play with a dog new to the park by herding (complete with nipping). The new dog completely freaked out, screaming like crazy (and in the process attracting all the other dogs to come find out what the hell was going on). New dog's owner (an attorney, as has surfaced today) also completely freaked out, and is now threatening to file a lawsuit against Fido's owner, claiming Fido viciously attacked his dog.
There is something off about this guy (let's call him Clark). Immediately after the attack happened, he got his dog, did little more than glance over her, and then immediately started pulling out his cell phone and demanding contact info from Fido's owner (who had already asked if his dog was ok and if there was anything she could do), claiming her "wolf" as he called it (she has a german shepherd) had attacked her dog. Clark refused to let anyone look at his dog, and myself and another guy in the park who asked him separately if we could look at his dog to see the injury were met with a "no and if you don't stop asking me questions I will call the police for harassment." A little odd, no? Several people (including myself) spent a lot of time right by his dog anyway and noticed no hint of injury. No bleeding, no limping, no wimpering. 5 minutes after the incident the dog seemed to be in a perfectly happy mood, actually. After staying on the phone for a while, Clark came back to Fido's owner, demanded her last name, which she gave, and then her address, which she refused. She then asked for Clark's name and contact info, which he refused to give her. She tried to reason with him, and he told her that if she didn't stop asking him questions he'd call the police for harassment. Ooookay.
I decided to leave at the same time Clark did, and as fate would have it (heh), I ended up taking the same route home for most of the trip. He got on the freeway heading towards San Francisco/Hayward (more on this later).
This morning Fido's owner had a message on her phone when she woke up, explaining that Clark had gone to the Berkeley Cat & Dog Hospital and had a bill to the tune of $546 (a call to the hospital confirmed the bill), and that she has 24 hours to respond and 2 days to send payment or he will sue her. He then later sent her an email (she didn't give him her address and it was a private address) repeating the same, and also stating that she could only reply once to either the phone message or the email, and that two replies would be deemed harassment. He also stated that he would only send her an itemized bill of the hospital visit once she gave him her address.
I don't trust this guy for a second. He showed not a whit of concern for his dog but a whole lot of zeal to make someone's life hell and get some money out of it. I don't understand why he decided to go home (I assume since the onramp to the 580 is a few miles in the opposite direction of the Berkeley Dog & Cat Hospital)before going to the dog hospital. If my dog were just attacked my first stop would be the vet. His odd behavior was more worrisome though (he stuck around the park for well over an hour after the incident, alternating between talking on his cell or standing there reading the dog park sign), and Fido's owner obviously does not want to give him her address because of this, but she would also like to see the bill. I talked with her for quite a while today (all eyewitnesses gave her their contact info in case he did decide to take action), and she is obviously feeling extremely threatened by his actions. My feeling is that it is his responsibility to provide prrof that his dog was attacked, and an itemized bill from the vet should be the first thing she sees before she agrees to do anything for this wacko. The only injury that dog could have possibly sustained in this "attack" was a small nip on the hind quarters. At the absolute worst, maybe, just maybe, the dog required a couple stitches and subsequent shots (which should not add up to $546, right?), though I am 99.5% positive that was not necesary.
Does this guy actually have a case? Even if he has a bill from the vet that details stitches and shots (that somehow add up to $546), does he have a case since there are 8 eyewitnesses who all saw run of the mill herding behavior and absolutely no "attack" of any kind? Anyone familiar with the law in this type of case? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as she's freaking out a little at this point and doesn't have much time left to answer this guy.
There is something off about this guy (let's call him Clark). Immediately after the attack happened, he got his dog, did little more than glance over her, and then immediately started pulling out his cell phone and demanding contact info from Fido's owner (who had already asked if his dog was ok and if there was anything she could do), claiming her "wolf" as he called it (she has a german shepherd) had attacked her dog. Clark refused to let anyone look at his dog, and myself and another guy in the park who asked him separately if we could look at his dog to see the injury were met with a "no and if you don't stop asking me questions I will call the police for harassment." A little odd, no? Several people (including myself) spent a lot of time right by his dog anyway and noticed no hint of injury. No bleeding, no limping, no wimpering. 5 minutes after the incident the dog seemed to be in a perfectly happy mood, actually. After staying on the phone for a while, Clark came back to Fido's owner, demanded her last name, which she gave, and then her address, which she refused. She then asked for Clark's name and contact info, which he refused to give her. She tried to reason with him, and he told her that if she didn't stop asking him questions he'd call the police for harassment. Ooookay.
I decided to leave at the same time Clark did, and as fate would have it (heh), I ended up taking the same route home for most of the trip. He got on the freeway heading towards San Francisco/Hayward (more on this later).
This morning Fido's owner had a message on her phone when she woke up, explaining that Clark had gone to the Berkeley Cat & Dog Hospital and had a bill to the tune of $546 (a call to the hospital confirmed the bill), and that she has 24 hours to respond and 2 days to send payment or he will sue her. He then later sent her an email (she didn't give him her address and it was a private address) repeating the same, and also stating that she could only reply once to either the phone message or the email, and that two replies would be deemed harassment. He also stated that he would only send her an itemized bill of the hospital visit once she gave him her address.
I don't trust this guy for a second. He showed not a whit of concern for his dog but a whole lot of zeal to make someone's life hell and get some money out of it. I don't understand why he decided to go home (I assume since the onramp to the 580 is a few miles in the opposite direction of the Berkeley Dog & Cat Hospital)before going to the dog hospital. If my dog were just attacked my first stop would be the vet. His odd behavior was more worrisome though (he stuck around the park for well over an hour after the incident, alternating between talking on his cell or standing there reading the dog park sign), and Fido's owner obviously does not want to give him her address because of this, but she would also like to see the bill. I talked with her for quite a while today (all eyewitnesses gave her their contact info in case he did decide to take action), and she is obviously feeling extremely threatened by his actions. My feeling is that it is his responsibility to provide prrof that his dog was attacked, and an itemized bill from the vet should be the first thing she sees before she agrees to do anything for this wacko. The only injury that dog could have possibly sustained in this "attack" was a small nip on the hind quarters. At the absolute worst, maybe, just maybe, the dog required a couple stitches and subsequent shots (which should not add up to $546, right?), though I am 99.5% positive that was not necesary.
Does this guy actually have a case? Even if he has a bill from the vet that details stitches and shots (that somehow add up to $546), does he have a case since there are 8 eyewitnesses who all saw run of the mill herding behavior and absolutely no "attack" of any kind? Anyone familiar with the law in this type of case? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as she's freaking out a little at this point and doesn't have much time left to answer this guy.
Check out this website: Dog Bite Law (especially the "For Dog Owners" section).
posted by ericb at 1:18 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by ericb at 1:18 PM on December 2, 2006
Was the biting/nipping dog on a leash? Worth mentioning, since if there was no leash and there are leash laws then yeah the guy can probably win the case cut and dry.
posted by rolypolyman at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by rolypolyman at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2006
I don't know how billing works in the medical world, but a couple of stitches and a tetanus booster in the ER will cost you much more than $546.
(But if he sues in small claims court, and she has 8 witnesses, she should be fine, no? She can ask someone to come in, and the others can write affadavits or something? IANAL.)
posted by gramcracker at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2006
(But if he sues in small claims court, and she has 8 witnesses, she should be fine, no? She can ask someone to come in, and the others can write affadavits or something? IANAL.)
posted by gramcracker at 1:21 PM on December 2, 2006
BTW -- it all does sound suspicious to me. If I were Fido's owner, I'd consult a lawyer in the area, as well as getting every eye witness to document in writing their individual recollections of the event.
posted by ericb at 1:23 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by ericb at 1:23 PM on December 2, 2006
Well the harassment angle is completely bogus imo, and it might be interesting to see his try to file that based on two requests to see an itemized bill.
Said bill should have date and time the dog was seen, which considering everything would work against him it there is a big discrepancy.
The $500 may cover stitches and shots, and and all medical treatment seems pretty pricey nowadays.
The standard answer in all of this is to talk to a lawyer.
rolypolyman: "dog park" is usually equated as a space where dogs do not need leashes
posted by edgeways at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2006
Said bill should have date and time the dog was seen, which considering everything would work against him it there is a big discrepancy.
The $500 may cover stitches and shots, and and all medical treatment seems pretty pricey nowadays.
The standard answer in all of this is to talk to a lawyer.
rolypolyman: "dog park" is usually equated as a space where dogs do not need leashes
posted by edgeways at 1:24 PM on December 2, 2006
Response by poster: Thanks for the info, eric, I just passed those links on to her. It looks like most of that pertains to dog-on-person attacks. I wonder if it's applicable to dog-on-dog attacks, particularly the part about "assumption of risk."
posted by adamp88 at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by adamp88 at 1:27 PM on December 2, 2006
That website also has info related to dogs being injured by other dogs. Check out: What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed.
posted by ericb at 1:29 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by ericb at 1:29 PM on December 2, 2006
This will depend on jurisdictions, but:
The threat seems exceedingly empty. Filing papers, even in small claims court, isn't free.
And she doesn't need to be sweating about it. The very worst that can happen is that he can recover damages -- the $546. If she can demonstrate that the replacement cost of the dog is less than that (ie, if it's a pound/shelter dog), she might well owe no more than the replacement cost.
Filing a lawsuit isn't some sort of punishment that means that TERRIBLE BAD THINGS happen to you. It just means that a judge might tell her to pay him, that's all.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2006
The threat seems exceedingly empty. Filing papers, even in small claims court, isn't free.
And she doesn't need to be sweating about it. The very worst that can happen is that he can recover damages -- the $546. If she can demonstrate that the replacement cost of the dog is less than that (ie, if it's a pound/shelter dog), she might well owe no more than the replacement cost.
Filing a lawsuit isn't some sort of punishment that means that TERRIBLE BAD THINGS happen to you. It just means that a judge might tell her to pay him, that's all.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:30 PM on December 2, 2006
Response by poster: This was an off-leash dog park. Obviously she'd like to avoid taking this to any sort of court, but if it comes to that I know most if not all of the eyewitnesses would be willing to help her out as much as possible.
posted by adamp88 at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by adamp88 at 1:31 PM on December 2, 2006
In our dog park there is a sign stating that "Dogs Bark, Dogs Sniff, Dogs nip". You are here are your risk.
This is just another case to illustrate that we have way to many lawyers that will sue at the blink of an eye.
I simply cannot imaging the lawyer winning. But as may has stated you should get names, etc of those that saw the event.
posted by JayRwv at 1:40 PM on December 2, 2006
This is just another case to illustrate that we have way to many lawyers that will sue at the blink of an eye.
I simply cannot imaging the lawyer winning. But as may has stated you should get names, etc of those that saw the event.
posted by JayRwv at 1:40 PM on December 2, 2006
I hate it when assholes like that take advantage of others like this; I don't have any advice, but I've enjoyed reading this with interest and would love for you to keep us posted on how this turns out. thanks
posted by uncballzer at 1:58 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by uncballzer at 1:58 PM on December 2, 2006
If there really is a vet bill showing charges that day for stitches, etc., that is pretty compelling evidence in court/small claims court. Because (assuming an authentic bill) the vet is not going to impose stitches on a dog who does not have an injury. If I were your friend I would ask for detailed vet bills -- not just the invoice but the actual records. I would make sure that the bill was legit and that every item billed was appropriate. Then I would probably pay.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:15 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:15 PM on December 2, 2006
She should definitely not provide any more information unless he does -- he's yet to give up his information, a detailed copy of the medical bill, etc. Look, if this was a car accident and the other driver wouldn't give you his license or insurance documentation, you'd call the cops to settle it, right? You wouldn't give out all your information to a stranger and let them drive away.
She should certainly not pay at this point. Just because he's a lawyer, or is saying he's a lawyer, doesn't mean she should be afraid of him. She has several witnesses to attest to the incident, the behavior of the owner, the suspicious actions of the owner, lack of concern for the actual 'injured' dog after the fact, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like the dog was critically injured from the details you've provided. She seemingly has a pretty good defense with your support.
If he harasses her for payment without any sort of formal legal movement behind it, tell her to tell him she's going to call the cops for harassment and get a restraining order against him. He threatened to call the cops for MUCH less, so throw it back in his face. In fact, it might not even hurt to talk to the police in the locality where this happened now, just to have it known and on record.
Another scenario, she might know of a lawyer or perhaps one of the 8 eyewitnesses knows of a lawyer who will listen to this gratis (at least at first) and advise on how to proceed or at what point a lawyer needs to step in in earnest.
It benefits you all (the eyewitnesses) to get involved as much as you can and assist where possible. You don't want this dude at the dog park anymore, really, because he might do it again to someone else and honestly, it could have been any one of you that he targeted for this. The dog park, as I've experienced it with my own dog, is generally a pretty coherent "community" where everyone has a stake in the place and the goings ons.
Let us know how this proceeds/turns out. I'll be adding it to my favorites, for sure.
posted by jerseygirl at 2:26 PM on December 2, 2006
She should certainly not pay at this point. Just because he's a lawyer, or is saying he's a lawyer, doesn't mean she should be afraid of him. She has several witnesses to attest to the incident, the behavior of the owner, the suspicious actions of the owner, lack of concern for the actual 'injured' dog after the fact, etc. It certainly doesn't seem like the dog was critically injured from the details you've provided. She seemingly has a pretty good defense with your support.
If he harasses her for payment without any sort of formal legal movement behind it, tell her to tell him she's going to call the cops for harassment and get a restraining order against him. He threatened to call the cops for MUCH less, so throw it back in his face. In fact, it might not even hurt to talk to the police in the locality where this happened now, just to have it known and on record.
Another scenario, she might know of a lawyer or perhaps one of the 8 eyewitnesses knows of a lawyer who will listen to this gratis (at least at first) and advise on how to proceed or at what point a lawyer needs to step in in earnest.
It benefits you all (the eyewitnesses) to get involved as much as you can and assist where possible. You don't want this dude at the dog park anymore, really, because he might do it again to someone else and honestly, it could have been any one of you that he targeted for this. The dog park, as I've experienced it with my own dog, is generally a pretty coherent "community" where everyone has a stake in the place and the goings ons.
Let us know how this proceeds/turns out. I'll be adding it to my favorites, for sure.
posted by jerseygirl at 2:26 PM on December 2, 2006
You know, now that I re-read it, he said he'd send the bill.
See if he can send the bill to in intermediary -- be it a lawyer friend acting on her behalf or even one of the eyewitnesses. She may even be able to arrange for him to drop it off at the police station, citing concern for physical harassment if she did release her address to him. I guess now I'd underscore that she should probably talk to the cops and a lawyer of her own.
posted by jerseygirl at 2:31 PM on December 2, 2006
See if he can send the bill to in intermediary -- be it a lawyer friend acting on her behalf or even one of the eyewitnesses. She may even be able to arrange for him to drop it off at the police station, citing concern for physical harassment if she did release her address to him. I guess now I'd underscore that she should probably talk to the cops and a lawyer of her own.
posted by jerseygirl at 2:31 PM on December 2, 2006
Sounds totally like a scam to me, complete with trained dog.
First, find out if he is an attorney. I doubt it very much, but if he is, then your friend can threaten to file a complaint alleging unethical behavior with the Bar. She should also call the head of the animal hospital, tell him or her what's going on, and advise him or her that their records will be subpoenaed in the event of a suit, and that he or she can expect to be deposed or subpoenaed, along with anyone who treated the dog in question.
I would also call the DA and tell them I think I am the victim of an extortion attempt, give them all the relevant information, and ask them to investigate this guy, if I were your friend.
Then I would tell 'Clark' I had done this. I would be very surprised if she heard from him again.
posted by jamjam at 2:46 PM on December 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
First, find out if he is an attorney. I doubt it very much, but if he is, then your friend can threaten to file a complaint alleging unethical behavior with the Bar. She should also call the head of the animal hospital, tell him or her what's going on, and advise him or her that their records will be subpoenaed in the event of a suit, and that he or she can expect to be deposed or subpoenaed, along with anyone who treated the dog in question.
I would also call the DA and tell them I think I am the victim of an extortion attempt, give them all the relevant information, and ask them to investigate this guy, if I were your friend.
Then I would tell 'Clark' I had done this. I would be very surprised if she heard from him again.
posted by jamjam at 2:46 PM on December 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
Obviously she'd like to avoid taking this to any sort of court
To reiterate, him taking it to court would only be an inconvenience to her. This is going to small claims court, where the judge will expect to be dealing with non-lawyers. Googling around, it appears that the very, absolutely, extremely worst thing that could ever possibly happen would be that she would have to pay the money, and possibly that a judgment against her might appear on her credit record. That's it.
So let him sue her. Things I might focus on:
Cast doubt -- is there any evidence that this specific injury was caused by her dog, and was not pre-existing? Witnesses to describe his odd conduct might help. Absent a specific statement from the vet stating that the injury was from a dog of about the same size as your friend's dog, how do we know this is the same?
Get information about the dog. AFAIK, dogs are usually treated as mere property. If it's a pound dog, she probably only owes him the cost of getting a new pound dog, and it's not her fault that he chose a more expensive remedy.
Likewise, if it's clear the dog had no life-threatening injury, a reasonable person would wait until the next convenient regular-business-hours appointment with his normal vet rather than go to a much more expensive emergency clinic, so your friend should probably not owe the full $546 in that case. Excess damages in this case were not caused by your friend, but by the lawyer's being other than a reasonable person.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:49 PM on December 2, 2006
To reiterate, him taking it to court would only be an inconvenience to her. This is going to small claims court, where the judge will expect to be dealing with non-lawyers. Googling around, it appears that the very, absolutely, extremely worst thing that could ever possibly happen would be that she would have to pay the money, and possibly that a judgment against her might appear on her credit record. That's it.
So let him sue her. Things I might focus on:
Cast doubt -- is there any evidence that this specific injury was caused by her dog, and was not pre-existing? Witnesses to describe his odd conduct might help. Absent a specific statement from the vet stating that the injury was from a dog of about the same size as your friend's dog, how do we know this is the same?
Get information about the dog. AFAIK, dogs are usually treated as mere property. If it's a pound dog, she probably only owes him the cost of getting a new pound dog, and it's not her fault that he chose a more expensive remedy.
Likewise, if it's clear the dog had no life-threatening injury, a reasonable person would wait until the next convenient regular-business-hours appointment with his normal vet rather than go to a much more expensive emergency clinic, so your friend should probably not owe the full $546 in that case. Excess damages in this case were not caused by your friend, but by the lawyer's being other than a reasonable person.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:49 PM on December 2, 2006
Response by poster: The vet bill for stitches is just conjecture. It could be that he went home and decided to call in during emergency off hours to up the price. It could be he went home, realized that he would need to fabricate some kind of proof that his dog needed medical assistance, and caused an injury to the dog himself and then took her in. Who knows? (ok, I'm not _that_ cynical... am I?)
Unfortunately no one who witnessed this knows any lawyers, though all the advice I've gotten here I've passed on her way. I feel very strongly that the only thing she should do within his given deadline is reply stating that she is naturally concerned if her dog really did inflict damage on his dog, but that she will not give him her address as he has no right to it, and she must see the bill before any further action is taken. I have urged her to contact the police, though, and I do like your idea to throw the threat of harassment back at him.
Thanks for all your help, everyone!
posted by adamp88 at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2006
Unfortunately no one who witnessed this knows any lawyers, though all the advice I've gotten here I've passed on her way. I feel very strongly that the only thing she should do within his given deadline is reply stating that she is naturally concerned if her dog really did inflict damage on his dog, but that she will not give him her address as he has no right to it, and she must see the bill before any further action is taken. I have urged her to contact the police, though, and I do like your idea to throw the threat of harassment back at him.
Thanks for all your help, everyone!
posted by adamp88 at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2006
Because I'm a vindictive SOB, I would reply via email, he is not to make contact via personal / professional email address. I would also note you are in contact with other witnesses; our next communication will be via registered mail only. Any further contact otherwise will be reported to police "as harassment."
Do not let him control the situation.
Unfortunately, I have a rental home with a neighbor who is much like this lawyer. Only one way to deal with this type. Fight fire with fire.
posted by vaportrail at 3:42 PM on December 2, 2006
Do not let him control the situation.
Unfortunately, I have a rental home with a neighbor who is much like this lawyer. Only one way to deal with this type. Fight fire with fire.
posted by vaportrail at 3:42 PM on December 2, 2006
Also--Police seem to be understanding of these head cases. They threw my problem neighbor in the back of a squad car (for dramatic value if nothing else). It worked.
posted by vaportrail at 3:45 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by vaportrail at 3:45 PM on December 2, 2006
Response by poster: Thanks for the info, ROU. I'll pass that on to her. I have to admit that the whole "I'm going to sue you!" tactic is quite intimiding when you haven't got a clue what that entails.
posted by adamp88 at 3:46 PM on December 2, 2006
posted by adamp88 at 3:46 PM on December 2, 2006
This sounds like either a scam or a case of a dickless wonder trying to compensate by being a bully. I can imagine that the vet's office either colluded or was bullied into giving him a bogus bill.
If I were the other dog's owner, I'd tell him that I'd have to see the bill before I'd even consider paying him, and once I'd gotten it, I'd go to the vet to see what I could find out.
And—this is just me, and I'm perverse—I'd try to get him to sue me for harrassment as many times as possible.
posted by adamrice at 4:42 PM on December 2, 2006
If I were the other dog's owner, I'd tell him that I'd have to see the bill before I'd even consider paying him, and once I'd gotten it, I'd go to the vet to see what I could find out.
And—this is just me, and I'm perverse—I'd try to get him to sue me for harrassment as many times as possible.
posted by adamrice at 4:42 PM on December 2, 2006
i think she should tell him to stop bothering her, as he is harassing her. if he wants to go to court, then let him. one or two witnesses will be all that it takes--especially if you happen to be one of them. she should tell him to stop calling, and if he continues after that, file a criminal complaint against him.
in my experience, small claims court judges tend to be pretty unsympathetic to plaintiffs that act the way he does.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 4:51 PM on December 2, 2006
in my experience, small claims court judges tend to be pretty unsympathetic to plaintiffs that act the way he does.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 4:51 PM on December 2, 2006
Best answer: If the dog really needed stitches (and that's a big "if"), and the injury occurred on the weekend or after hours, then the dog owner is entitled to the fees for more expensive emergency hours. The vet costs what it costs, and a court is not going to make the dog owner wait until Monday when it's cheaper.
If it were me I would have the detailed medical records sent to my place of work (so the person didn't have my home address), and then I would contact the vet and ask for an explanation of each charge. Berkeley Dog & Cat has an impecable reputation (though they are expensive) -- it's not like they are going to lie about the dog's injuries or lack of injuries, or impose stitches on a dog with no injury. They might seek permission from the dog's owner to speak to you, and if the dog's owner wants payment he absolutely needs to give that permission.
I have a dog, and am an active user of dog parks in the Bay Area. Sometimes the dog park world gets a little overly dramatic, on all sides. The owner whose dog was supposedly injured freaks out, the owner whose dog was the supposed culprit freaks out. Everybody takes sides, everybody gossips about it for days. But at the end of the day it will depend upon the actual medical bills, if they exist, and the actual evidence from the vet. That is much better evidence than what people think they saw from a distance. If there are legitimate bills, your friend owes the guy the money. If not, not.
The fact that the guy is a jerk is a factor, but it does not determine the answer of whether or not your friend owes the money.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 5:07 PM on December 2, 2006
If it were me I would have the detailed medical records sent to my place of work (so the person didn't have my home address), and then I would contact the vet and ask for an explanation of each charge. Berkeley Dog & Cat has an impecable reputation (though they are expensive) -- it's not like they are going to lie about the dog's injuries or lack of injuries, or impose stitches on a dog with no injury. They might seek permission from the dog's owner to speak to you, and if the dog's owner wants payment he absolutely needs to give that permission.
I have a dog, and am an active user of dog parks in the Bay Area. Sometimes the dog park world gets a little overly dramatic, on all sides. The owner whose dog was supposedly injured freaks out, the owner whose dog was the supposed culprit freaks out. Everybody takes sides, everybody gossips about it for days. But at the end of the day it will depend upon the actual medical bills, if they exist, and the actual evidence from the vet. That is much better evidence than what people think they saw from a distance. If there are legitimate bills, your friend owes the guy the money. If not, not.
The fact that the guy is a jerk is a factor, but it does not determine the answer of whether or not your friend owes the money.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 5:07 PM on December 2, 2006
What a freak. Seriously.
Recently, my two large dogs got into a fight with each other (very rare, and heartbreaking, but that would be another post altogether). The vet bill was $299, but that was for two dogs:
$40 for anesthesia for one dog
$60 to stitch up one gaping wound on said dog
$60 for pain meds for both dogs
$60 for antibiotics for both dogs
$60 for office visits for both dogs
Well it did add up to $299, I'm estimating on the itemization. Truth be told, I could have gotten the same treatment for much less by giving aspirin for pain and getting the abx at a pharmacy rather than from the vet, but again, that's another post altogether.
Good luck. Sounds like you have a wacko on your hands.
posted by forensicphd at 5:30 PM on December 2, 2006
Recently, my two large dogs got into a fight with each other (very rare, and heartbreaking, but that would be another post altogether). The vet bill was $299, but that was for two dogs:
$40 for anesthesia for one dog
$60 to stitch up one gaping wound on said dog
$60 for pain meds for both dogs
$60 for antibiotics for both dogs
$60 for office visits for both dogs
Well it did add up to $299, I'm estimating on the itemization. Truth be told, I could have gotten the same treatment for much less by giving aspirin for pain and getting the abx at a pharmacy rather than from the vet, but again, that's another post altogether.
Good luck. Sounds like you have a wacko on your hands.
posted by forensicphd at 5:30 PM on December 2, 2006
Why doesn't your friend have much time to answer? Were it me, I would ignore the bill. Let him draft a Summons and Complaint and have your friend served if he is serious.
Advise your friend to admit to nothing (not even that her dog was in the same park) in writing or in conversations with the owner.
posted by mlis at 5:36 PM on December 2, 2006
Advise your friend to admit to nothing (not even that her dog was in the same park) in writing or in conversations with the owner.
posted by mlis at 5:36 PM on December 2, 2006
I find it exceedingly hard to believe there was any injury at all. There is, from your description of events, no evidence that his dog was injured - and in fact the fact that he hasn't thrown in a bill to cover cleaning costs for the bloody back seat of his car seems to be to be a good indication that there was no injury at all.
I think this is a huge scam. The guy prevents anyone from establishing even the basic fact of the injury and THEN has the temerity to present a large bill? I call BS. If his dog had really been injured, he would have wanted witnesses. And if he doesn't, then too bad for him.
posted by mikel at 8:29 PM on December 2, 2006
I think this is a huge scam. The guy prevents anyone from establishing even the basic fact of the injury and THEN has the temerity to present a large bill? I call BS. If his dog had really been injured, he would have wanted witnesses. And if he doesn't, then too bad for him.
posted by mikel at 8:29 PM on December 2, 2006
Sounds iffey to me, especially the bit about the itemized bill. Here's what I would suggest: contact the vet and ask for a copy of the bill. Then check if the dates: are yuo sure the person isn't just trying to get your friend to pay their bill? If the charges are for before today, the charges aren't a result of the "bite"
My wife made a great suggestion: your friend should make an offer to meet the person at the vet, to view the bill and discuss this with the vet. If the vet says that the bill was the result of a bite on that date and time, your friend pays. If the vet doesn't support that, they don't pay. If the worst comes to the worst, your friend has at least shown willingness to pay if proven at fault when it comes up in small claims court.
(Standard disclaimer: not a lawyer, don't want to be one, consult a lawyer before sueing someone's ass, etc)
posted by baggers at 10:03 PM on December 2, 2006
My wife made a great suggestion: your friend should make an offer to meet the person at the vet, to view the bill and discuss this with the vet. If the vet says that the bill was the result of a bite on that date and time, your friend pays. If the vet doesn't support that, they don't pay. If the worst comes to the worst, your friend has at least shown willingness to pay if proven at fault when it comes up in small claims court.
(Standard disclaimer: not a lawyer, don't want to be one, consult a lawyer before sueing someone's ass, etc)
posted by baggers at 10:03 PM on December 2, 2006
If I were your friend, I would do these things:
1. Approach all the witnesses and ask them for written notes about what they saw happen, datestamp these, and keep them on file.
2. Nothing else. I would not reply to Clark's email, nor to his phone call. But then, I wouldn't have given him contact information in the first place unless he'd shown me a wound on his dog.
From your description, this has "trained dog scam" written all over it, and I wouldn't pay him a brass razoo unless and until instructed to, personally, by the judge.
posted by flabdablet at 1:48 AM on December 3, 2006
1. Approach all the witnesses and ask them for written notes about what they saw happen, datestamp these, and keep them on file.
2. Nothing else. I would not reply to Clark's email, nor to his phone call. But then, I wouldn't have given him contact information in the first place unless he'd shown me a wound on his dog.
From your description, this has "trained dog scam" written all over it, and I wouldn't pay him a brass razoo unless and until instructed to, personally, by the judge.
posted by flabdablet at 1:48 AM on December 3, 2006
I hope the vet isn't shady. That would definitely complicate things.
posted by forensicphd at 4:46 AM on December 3, 2006
posted by forensicphd at 4:46 AM on December 3, 2006
That's what I was thinking too, forensicphd.
posted by jerseygirl at 6:31 AM on December 3, 2006
posted by jerseygirl at 6:31 AM on December 3, 2006
Response by poster: The hospital where the bill comes from has a very good reputation (I take my dog there), so I'm not concerned about shady business from the vet. My friend also thought the vet's office would be a good, neutral place to view and discuss the bill. Type of service, date and time are definitely something she'll be looking for. I haven't heard from her since yesterday afternoon, but I'll give her a call shortly and see what she's decided to do for the time being.
Again, thanks for all the help. Under normal circumstances and dealing with a sane person, I would not have expected that incident to elicit anything except a "sorry, is she ok?" - "yeah, she's fine, just got a little scared" and that'd be the end of it.
posted by adamp88 at 9:32 AM on December 3, 2006
Again, thanks for all the help. Under normal circumstances and dealing with a sane person, I would not have expected that incident to elicit anything except a "sorry, is she ok?" - "yeah, she's fine, just got a little scared" and that'd be the end of it.
posted by adamp88 at 9:32 AM on December 3, 2006
Like others have suggested, I would not respond to his demands that she respond by such-and-such day and time. Let him continue to persue this if it's in fact true. Put the burden on HIM to follow up, contact her, etc. Your friend could also set up a P.O. box where he could send the detailed vet's bill for her review prior to her agreeing to pay him anything.
I also think letting a judge decide what the right thing to do in this case would be the way to go. No one should pay someone just on their say so.
I'm very curious to see how this plays out. Please post follow-up information.
Ohh, and make sure she documents everything! Every time he contacts her - date, time and nature of the conversation, etc. In the past when I've gotten involved in something that turned ugly I wished like hell I would have started journaling sooner.
Good Luck!!
posted by SoftSummerBreeze at 7:49 PM on December 3, 2006
I also think letting a judge decide what the right thing to do in this case would be the way to go. No one should pay someone just on their say so.
I'm very curious to see how this plays out. Please post follow-up information.
Ohh, and make sure she documents everything! Every time he contacts her - date, time and nature of the conversation, etc. In the past when I've gotten involved in something that turned ugly I wished like hell I would have started journaling sooner.
Good Luck!!
posted by SoftSummerBreeze at 7:49 PM on December 3, 2006
Has anyone ever seen this freak at the dog park before? Is it possible he was just trolling to get someone to pay for an annual physical and shots for the dog? Is it possible someone go ahold of letterhead from the vet and just forged the bill? I'd confirm the date of service and the charges with the vet before I wrote a check.
posted by unrepentanthippie at 5:50 AM on December 4, 2006
posted by unrepentanthippie at 5:50 AM on December 4, 2006
Shouldn't there be a police report if the dog suffered any injuries? I think the owner of the offending dog should contact the police and there should be other witnesses to give information to the police.
posted by JJ86 at 8:09 AM on December 4, 2006
posted by JJ86 at 8:09 AM on December 4, 2006
Response by poster: Well I got some more info from Fido's owner. Clark sent a bill to her old address (which she never gave him, obviously), and it does detail a puncture wound and lots of medication, like triple antibiotics and painkillers, which I find very, very odd considering how absolutely normal the dog appeared to be not 5 minutes after the incident. I wouldn't be surprised if this asshole pushed for extra medication. No word on whether a date and time were on there, or if it was an actual copy or something he typed up. I've urged her to speak with the vet who administered the service and get absolutely as much detail as she can. He has also threatened to have Fido impounded and/or destroyed if she does not pay. She is obviously quite distraught now, and won't be taking Fido to the dog park anytime soon.
My feeling is this. There is absolutely no way he can PROVE that it was Fido who inflicted that wound. After his dog started yelping, at least 8 dogs immediately zero'd in on his dog, and there was lots of bumping going on. Who knows, maybe another dog got excited and bit?
So, given that:
-There were multiple dogs that converged on his dog during the yelping
-He refused to let anyone take a look at his dog for injuries
-He refused to divulge any of his information
-His dog exhibited no physically observable signs of injury after the "attack" (granted, the wound could have been covered up by fur), and indeed seemed perfectly happy soon after
-He remained in the park for nearly an hour despite his dog having withstood, in his words, a "vicious attack"
-He did not go straight to the vet once he left the park
-He did not once stop to thoroughly check over his dog
-His persistent and completely baseless claims of harassment (clearly already thinking lawsuit even to those who were only trying to help)
It seems there is enough here to cast plenty of doubt in a trial. I'll have to check Berkeley laws to see what dogs fall under in civil cases - if it's property then ROU's suggestion may also come in handy. I'm just concerned that Fido's owner may not want to go that far, because if she does challenge him and he does end up winning, there is no doubt he will fight to impound and destroy Fido.
posted by adamp88 at 3:56 PM on December 4, 2006
My feeling is this. There is absolutely no way he can PROVE that it was Fido who inflicted that wound. After his dog started yelping, at least 8 dogs immediately zero'd in on his dog, and there was lots of bumping going on. Who knows, maybe another dog got excited and bit?
So, given that:
-There were multiple dogs that converged on his dog during the yelping
-He refused to let anyone take a look at his dog for injuries
-He refused to divulge any of his information
-His dog exhibited no physically observable signs of injury after the "attack" (granted, the wound could have been covered up by fur), and indeed seemed perfectly happy soon after
-He remained in the park for nearly an hour despite his dog having withstood, in his words, a "vicious attack"
-He did not go straight to the vet once he left the park
-He did not once stop to thoroughly check over his dog
-His persistent and completely baseless claims of harassment (clearly already thinking lawsuit even to those who were only trying to help)
It seems there is enough here to cast plenty of doubt in a trial. I'll have to check Berkeley laws to see what dogs fall under in civil cases - if it's property then ROU's suggestion may also come in handy. I'm just concerned that Fido's owner may not want to go that far, because if she does challenge him and he does end up winning, there is no doubt he will fight to impound and destroy Fido.
posted by adamp88 at 3:56 PM on December 4, 2006
Given the new info -- by all means each/every eyewitness should put in writing their recollection of what happened. The details are fresh in folks minds. I'd even suggest people get their affidavits notarized.
posted by ericb at 4:56 PM on December 4, 2006
posted by ericb at 4:56 PM on December 4, 2006
I would contact the police immediately. You said she didn't give him her address, but he came up with an old address? And "and also stating that she could only reply once to either the phone message or the email, and that two replies would be deemed harassment." - that's complete bullshit. That's not harassment by any stretch of the imagination. This guy is pulling stuff out of his ass.
"Clark" is a whackjob. I think your friend should contact the police and file a temporary restraining order against the guy if she hears another peep out of him. And ericb is absolutely correct. Get statements from everyone and make sure that your friend documents everything that she can, as accurately as she can.
He's just trying to intimidate her. Unless Fido has a history with animal control, he cannot have her dog impounded and/or destroyed and he's delusional if he thinks that he can. If this guy expects a fucking dime, he better cough up verifiable information.
If she has a copy of the bill, have her go by the vet's office and make sure that's actually a bill they sent out, and not just some forged letterhead business.
posted by drstein at 11:40 PM on December 4, 2006
"Clark" is a whackjob. I think your friend should contact the police and file a temporary restraining order against the guy if she hears another peep out of him. And ericb is absolutely correct. Get statements from everyone and make sure that your friend documents everything that she can, as accurately as she can.
He's just trying to intimidate her. Unless Fido has a history with animal control, he cannot have her dog impounded and/or destroyed and he's delusional if he thinks that he can. If this guy expects a fucking dime, he better cough up verifiable information.
If she has a copy of the bill, have her go by the vet's office and make sure that's actually a bill they sent out, and not just some forged letterhead business.
posted by drstein at 11:40 PM on December 4, 2006
This bears repeating! It's all Excellent advise!!
I would contact the police immediately. You said she didn't give him her address, but he came up with an old address? And "and also stating that she could only reply once to either the phone message or the email, and that two replies would be deemed harassment." - that's complete bullshit. That's not harassment by any stretch of the imagination. This guy is pulling stuff out of his ass.
"Clark" is a whackjob. I think your friend should contact the police and file a temporary restraining order against the guy if she hears another peep out of him. And ericb is absolutely correct. Get statements from everyone and make sure that your friend documents everything that she can, as accurately as she can.
He's just trying to intimidate her. Unless Fido has a history with animal control, he cannot have her dog impounded and/or destroyed and he's delusional if he thinks that he can. If this guy expects a fucking dime, he better cough up verifiable information.
If she has a copy of the bill, have her go by the vet's office and make sure that's actually a bill they sent out, and not just some forged letterhead business
posted by SoftSummerBreeze at 8:25 PM on December 5, 2006
I would contact the police immediately. You said she didn't give him her address, but he came up with an old address? And "and also stating that she could only reply once to either the phone message or the email, and that two replies would be deemed harassment." - that's complete bullshit. That's not harassment by any stretch of the imagination. This guy is pulling stuff out of his ass.
"Clark" is a whackjob. I think your friend should contact the police and file a temporary restraining order against the guy if she hears another peep out of him. And ericb is absolutely correct. Get statements from everyone and make sure that your friend documents everything that she can, as accurately as she can.
He's just trying to intimidate her. Unless Fido has a history with animal control, he cannot have her dog impounded and/or destroyed and he's delusional if he thinks that he can. If this guy expects a fucking dime, he better cough up verifiable information.
If she has a copy of the bill, have her go by the vet's office and make sure that's actually a bill they sent out, and not just some forged letterhead business
posted by SoftSummerBreeze at 8:25 PM on December 5, 2006
Any news to report on the Fido/Clark situation?
posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on December 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I spoke with her yesterday. He apparently sent another threatening email saying that her time was up and he was going to take action. Despite the fact that he had not, as he had promised, released the bill so she could speak with the vet prior to committing to payment. She reported him to the police for harassment shortly after. Also, he is, or rather, was actually a lawyer. Searching the california bar site shows him to be inactive, but he is registered there. Given his one-can-short-of-a-six-pack behavior, one wonders why he is no longer active...
As for resolving the situation, I think she's just gotten plain tired and frustrated of it all and is currently seeking a lawyer to draft a "Release of All Claims" forms so that when she pays this nutjob, he can't later claim that some injury was a result of this one and press her for money. I've volunteered to be her witness should she need to meet in person with Mr. "I'm doing my best to uphold the negative lawyer stereotype" Nutcase to sign the Release form. I'd love to see him threaten harassment again. ;)
posted by adamp88 at 7:46 PM on December 8, 2006
As for resolving the situation, I think she's just gotten plain tired and frustrated of it all and is currently seeking a lawyer to draft a "Release of All Claims" forms so that when she pays this nutjob, he can't later claim that some injury was a result of this one and press her for money. I've volunteered to be her witness should she need to meet in person with Mr. "I'm doing my best to uphold the negative lawyer stereotype" Nutcase to sign the Release form. I'd love to see him threaten harassment again. ;)
posted by adamp88 at 7:46 PM on December 8, 2006
Thanks for the update.
Despite the fact that he had not, as he had promised, released the bill so she could speak with the vet prior to committing to payment.
She should follow the "no ticket, no laundry" rule. And, as others have suggested ... it is important to make sure that the bill is legit and not a forgery. However, I'm sure she'll be getting advice from the lawyer she hires. By all means, keep us updated. Thanks.
posted by ericb at 8:51 PM on December 8, 2006
Despite the fact that he had not, as he had promised, released the bill so she could speak with the vet prior to committing to payment.
She should follow the "no ticket, no laundry" rule. And, as others have suggested ... it is important to make sure that the bill is legit and not a forgery. However, I'm sure she'll be getting advice from the lawyer she hires. By all means, keep us updated. Thanks.
posted by ericb at 8:51 PM on December 8, 2006
I can't believe she's even considering paying the nutjob without being ordered to do so in court. No way would I even consider doing that. If he wants his fish, let him jump through the hoops.
posted by flabdablet at 4:57 AM on December 9, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 4:57 AM on December 9, 2006
He's probably "inactive" for a reason. A lawyer friend of mine was just talking about what you need to do to remain active, and it's not all that difficult.
I do not think that she should pay him a fucking dime. Why? That's probably what he's going for - bombarding people until they just pay him to go away. Do not encourage such behavior!Bitchslap this turd muffin.
posted by drstein at 10:06 PM on December 9, 2006
I do not think that she should pay him a fucking dime. Why? That's probably what he's going for - bombarding people until they just pay him to go away. Do not encourage such behavior!Bitchslap this turd muffin.
posted by drstein at 10:06 PM on December 9, 2006
OH. Have her file a complaint with the State Bar Association anyway. This guy is deserving of one.
posted by drstein at 10:06 PM on December 9, 2006
posted by drstein at 10:06 PM on December 9, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by adamp88 at 1:16 PM on December 2, 2006