Athens Dog Bite Lawyer: Protecting Victims of Dog Attacks in Georgia

Insights from Green v. Wilson: Broadening the Scope of “Knowledge”

As demonstrated in a recent opinion from the Georgia Court of Appeals, Green v. Wilson, it remains possible to surmount this hurdle. In this case, the plaintiff, a house cleaner, was injured while escaping a border collie that leaped over an enclosure and charged her. The defendants typically locked the dog away for cleaners, and the dog would lunge, bark, and growl when being relocated. While the plaintiff hadn’t seen direct aggression towards herself, other cleaners testified about being scared of the dog.

The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defense, arguing no evidence showed the dog had a propensity for the particular act that caused the injury (chasing). However, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed this. Citing Wade v. American Nat. Ins. Co., the majority found that prior behavior like lunging and growling was not “meaningfully different” from the dog escaping and chasing. This suggests that “knowledge of propensity” doesn’t require an incident involving the exact same conduct and injury to occur before the owner’s knowledge may be inferred (Torrance v. Brennan).

While a dissenting judge argued for a stricter interpretation—that lunging isn’t enough to imply a propensity for chasing—the majority’s view prevailed. This means that judges often leave the question of “reasonableness” and sufficiency of knowledge to a jury. For victims, this is fortunate, as it allows for a “day in court” to present evidence of an owner’s awareness of their dog’s general aggressive tendencies.

As Green aptly demonstrates, a litigant must be prepared to overcome the many procedural obstacles that come before any trial. The aid of experienced counsel goes a long way in helping to successfully advance your case through these stages.