Okay, so the Duval County Clerk of Court is still having delays.
Art answered Kelly's Complaint, apparently on April 21. As someone out there predicted, he also countersued. Art's attorney is Sam Jacobson.
I've yet to see this pleading, but it's safe to say that Art denied Kelly's version of the attack as well as Kelly's injuries and countered as a victim suffering his own injuries in the form of non-skin breaking bites (or non-breaking skin bites, I always get those two confused).
It is unclear whether Art also named Kelly's dog as a co-defendant.
Kelly now has 20 days to file his own answer to the countercomplaint.
If necessary, Kelly can either third party or Fabre his dog into the case, thereby minimizing or eliminating Kelly's liability.
It is unknown whether the dog is represented by counsel or whether the dog will have its own suit, either against Kelly or Art, for some form of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I suppose, not being a dog-bite lawyer, that if the dog is found at fault, in spite of strict liability of owners, this may open up a whole area of practice: negligent pet adoption, similar in nature to negligent hiring of employees. For that matter, is the dog at issue a "working breed?" Who trained this dog? Negligent training? Was the bite in the course and scope of employement? If the dog suffered side effects for biting someone whose blood stream was chock full of prescriptions, is there an exposure claim? How about canine comp? The St. Pete Times has opined that thanks to our current legislative session we can argue that the "spaghetti monster" created the world so long as it's argued objectively, and we can no longer safeguard the gene pool by identify stupid people by the fake bull nuts hanging from their trucks. So why not canine comp? How ridiculous.
Post a Comment