In Part III of this series, we discuss the application of punitive damages in a dog bite claim. On a broad scale, Arizona law restricts punitive damages in those cases in which (1) the defendant's conduct is “aggravated and outrageous,” and (2) the wrongful conduct was guided by “an evil mind.”[1] When a Plaintiff is asserting a claim for punitive damages against a Defendant in a civil lawsuit, “a plaintiff must always prove ‘outwardly aggravated, outrageous, malicious, or fraudulent conduct” and a plaintiff must also prove, as a second element, that the defendant's wrongful conduct was guided by evil motives.[2]
In the context of civil lawsuits involving a dog bite claim, the general consensus in Arizona is that punitive damages are available when the owner either intended to have the dog bite the injured person or were reckless and careless in the training or handling of the dog. For example, punitive damages may be appropriate in a case where the dog owner trained the dog to attack people, even if the dog owner did not specifically direct the dog to attack the person injured.
However, Arizona courts have allowed the question of punitive damages to be presented to a jury in cases where the evidence against the Defendant was far less extreme. In one case, the Plaintiff was allowed to make a claim for punitive damages against a Defendant because the dog in question had a prior history of viciousness and there was evidence that the Defendant continued to retain the dog despite knowledge of said viciousness.[3] In most cases, whether the plaintiff has clear and convincing evidence of an “evil hand” guided by an “evil mind” is often left to be decided by the jury.
The attorneys at Thomas Rubin & Kelley are well-versed in all areas of dog bite claims, including those involving punitive damage allegations. If you require assistance on any of your Arizona claims, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Rubin (brubin@trkfirm.com) or Michael Kelley (mkelley@trkfirm.com).
[1] Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 331, 723 P.2d 675, 680 (1986).
[2] Rawlings v Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 163, 726 P.2d 565, 578 (1986).
[3] Jones v. Manhart, 120 Ariz. 338, 585 P.2d 1250 (1978).