Posted on May 18, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Elderly Woman Dies After October Pit Bull Attack

Maryann Hanula, 73-years old, died seven months after a violent pit bull mauling.

Numerous Surgeries
Surprise, AZ - An elderly woman badly mauled by two pit bulls last year has died. Maryann Hanula, then 73-years old, was in her front yard on October 10, when the attack occurred. The two pit bulls, a male and female, escaped a gated yard on the same street. When neighbors tried to rescue Maryann, the dogs turned on them. Another neighbor -- an off-duty Phoenix police officer -- shot and killed both dogs. Most of the woman's right foot was gone before medics arrived.

After the October attack, friends say Maryann underwent 13 surgeries and suffered multiple infections, spending most of the last seven months in the hospital. The dogs' owner, Cynthia Montoya had only lived on the street for about three weeks prior to the attack. After the incident, Montoya said she was "surprised" by the dogs' behavior. Unsurprisingly, the Montoyas moved away about six weeks later and could not be reached for comment about Maryann's death.

The dogs' owner, Cynthia Montoya, has never faced criminal charges despite a new Arizona law intended to hold pet owners accountable when their animals attack.

Fabian's Law stipulates that a pet owner can be charged with a felony if their animal attacks a person.

Surprise police told CBS5 that they could never establish that Montoya knew the dogs were vicious, so the case did not move forward.

Sally and Richard Andrade are the Valley couple who helped get Fabian's Law passed at the state Capitol last year.

The law mandates tighter penalties for dog owners whose animals attack.

The Andrades lost their poodle, Fabian, after he was attacked by a viscous dog in their neighborhood.

They said that they can't believe the owner of the dogs who attacked Hanula were never charged, and now that she has died, they want Montoya to face a stiffer penalty. - KPHO, May 18, 2012

Posted on May 8, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Pet Pit Bull Mauls to Death 74-Year Old Owner in Santa Fe

Clifford Wright seen with his son Gavin in a November 27, 2002 photo.

Dog Euthanized
UPDATE 05/08/12: In the continuing saga of Gavin Wright, who initially hoped to spare family the pit bull after it brutally killed his father, allowed authorities to euthanize the dog today. On Monday, KOB.com released parts of the 911 call that offers more insight into Gavin. "Don't make me (expletive) repeat myself again ... My dog got a hold of him somehow," he said. It is possible that yesterday's airing of the segment inspired Gavin to allow for the humane euthanasia of the dog.

05/04/12: Death by Dog Confirmed
On Thursday, the state Office of the Medical Investigator released an initial cause of death that found that 74-year old Clifford Wright died as a result of a dog attack, not of any other health issues. According to the Santa Fe Police Department, Wright also had a history of dog attack reports at his home. In 2005, police responded to Wright's home after reports he was bitten by a different family pit bull. In 2011, police responded to his home after reports of a loose pit bull.

Several hours after the initial KOB.com news article was posted, a video was added that included more information. The victim's son, former Santa Fe High football player Gavin Wright, who made the 911 call, lived with his father along with four dogs, three of which were pit bulls. Gavin reportedly does not believe that the family pit bull, named Achilles, struck down his father in a life ending mauling, despite the Santa Fe Police Department confirming that the animal did.1

05/02/12: Pit Bull Suspected in Death
Santa Fe, NM - In a developing story, Santa Fe police are investigating the death of a 74-year old man. Clifford Wright was discovered by his 27-year old son, Gavin Wright, dead in the front yard on Wednesday. Police responded to an emergency medical call from the son, who said "his father had been attacked by an animal at their house." According to a longtime neighbor, the unaltered male pit bull belonged to the son and was a recent addition to the family's household.

1The victim's family, his son(s), are not willingly surrendering the dog to be euthanized, forcing authorities to ask a judge for this permission.

Posted on May 8, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 15-Month Old Girl Killed by Family Pit Bull in Las Cruces, New Mexico

Inconsistent Statements
UPDATE 09/12/12: KVIA.com reports that statements made by the grandmother, Leticia Mesa, about events leading up to the savage attack were inconsistent, as was her knowledge of the dog's previous aggressive acts. The autopsy report shows the child was alone with the dog when she was attacked. "There's a difference between a crime and an accident," District Attorney Amy Orlando told KVIA.com. The Mesa family is responsible for the death of Jazilyn, Orlando said.

"Investigators interviewed Leticia Mesa at least twice and, according to them, her statements regarding the events that led to the fatal attack were inconsistent. Detectives also found inconsistencies in Leticia Mesa's statements on whether she knew that the dog showed signs of aggression prior to the fatal attack.

According to court documents, Leticia Mesa told police she and Jazilyn were in the backyard with the dog. She originally told police the baby was walking around and may have walked up to the dog's drinking water when it attacked her, documents show.

Three days later, documents show Leticia Mesa changed her story. According to documents, Leticia Mesa said she was actually carrying the baby in the backyard when the dog tried to pull her out of her arms. Police said Leticia Mesa told them she never let go of the baby.

The autopsy of the baby shows the baby was alone with the dog when she was attacked, despite what Leticia Mesa told police. The coroner's office said the baby had drag marks and 12 to 15 bites." - KVIA.com

09/11/12: Family Members Charged
Four months after our last update about the pit bull mauling death of Jazilyn Mesa, authorities have arrested and charged three residents of the home where the deadly attack took place. Leticia Mesa, 52, the child's paternal grandmother, is charged with negligent child abuse resulting in death. Arthur Mesa Sr., 57, and Jesus Mesa, 21, the child's grandfather and father respectively are each charged with one count of possession of a dangerous dog resulting in death.

Through interviews with individuals, Las Cruces Police detectives learned that the Mesa's pit bull, named Tyson, had demonstrated aggression toward people and dogs in the past. Jazilyn's mother and paternal grandmother had also expressed concern about the pit bull and had asked the Mesa family to get rid of the dog, according to police. When the Mesa family refused, Jazilyn's mother mandated that her child not be allowed anywhere near the dog when visiting the home.

Leticia Mesa was booked into the Dona Ana County Detention Center with a $15,000 bond.

05/11/12: Family Speaks Out
New information from KVIA.com reveals that Jazilyn Mesa was killed by her father's pet pit bull. Arthur Mesa, the baby's grandfather, said that Jazilyn was never allowed to be alone with the dog. Jazilyn had wanted to play outside and the grandmother was in the process of putting the dog in the kennel when it attacked. The grandmother tried to stop the attack, but the pit bull would not let the baby loose and drug her underneath the ground-level trampoline and continued attacking her.

"Art Mesa said Tyson was 2-years-old and had never bitten anyone before. He said baby Jazilyn was never allowed to be alone with Tyson. Mesa said he could never have imagined something like this could happen.

"The baby wanted to go outside, and play," Mesa said, sitting in the backyard where the baby was mauled. "So the procedure was, put the dog away because he's big, and played rough. So that's what they were doing -- taking the dog and putting it in the kennel. And it attacked."

Mesa said his wife jumped on Jazilyn to cover her but the dog would not let the baby loose. He said the dog then took the baby underneath a trampoline in the backyard. Mesa said his wife, Letitia Mesa, grabbed rocks and was hitting the dog with them." - KVIA.com

The pit bull turned its attention upon neighbor Barry Sander after he arrived with a handgun, according to Mesa. Snyder fired multiple shots at the dog, hitting it six times. One shot also hit the grandmother, Letitia Mesa, by accident. Both the baby and the grandmother were rushed to area hospitals. Jazilyn did not survive her injuries. Letitia has since been released from the hospital and is recovering at home. There is no confirmation at this time of negligent charges being filed.

Fatal Dog Attacks in New Mexico

Since 2005, DogsBite.org has recorded 5 fatal dog attacks in the State of New Mexico. 80% of these deaths are attributed to pit bulls. 80% of all victims have also been adults. Only one case resulted in criminal charges, the owners of the pit bulls that struck down Margaret Salcedo on Easter Sunday. The 2006 death of Juan Garcia was only located as recently as 2011. It is possible that there are additional unidentified fatal dog maulings between the years of 2007 to 2010.

2006: Juan Garcia, 53-years old (Gallina, Rio Arriba Co.)
2010: Larry Armstrong, 55-years old (McKinley Co.)
2011: Margaret Salcedo, 48-years old (Truth or Consequences, Sierra Co.)
2012: Clifford Wright, 74-years old (Santa Fe, Santa Fe Co.)
2012: Jazilyn Mesa, 15-months old (Las Cruces, Dona Ana Co.)

05/09/12: Child Victim Identified
Police continue to investigate the most recent New Mexico fatal pit bull mauling. The deceased child has been identified as Jazilyn Mesa and was determined to be 15-months old. The incident also resulted in the accidental shooting of the child's paternal grandmother, Leticia Mesa, 52, who was shot by a well-intentioned neighbor who intervened with a firearm to stop the family pit bull from killing the child. Las Cruces Police said the woman's injuries are not life threatening.

Authorities say it is unlikely that the shooter, Barry Snyder, 69, will face any charges.

05/08/12: Child Killed by Pit Bull
Las Cruces, NM - In a developing story, there has been another fatal pit bull mauling in the State of New Mexico in less than one week. At the time of the incident, the child was in the backyard of her grandparent's home. The girl's 52-year old grandmother was accidentally shot in the leg after one neighbor intervened with a firearm to stop the pit bull attacking the girl. Both victims were transported to El Paso hospital. The child did not survive the injuries inflicted by the family pit bull.

A different neighbor, Chris Wollard, who heard the gunshots from about 100 yards away, also ran to the home to help. He looked into the backyard where he found the grandmother and child hiding underneath a trampoline. Wollard, a respiratory therapist, took the child and began giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation until paramedics arrived. Wollard told the Las Cruces Sun-News that the child was in "pretty bad shape." Police officials are continuing to investigate the child's death.

A male pit bull seen in the grandparent's home prior to killing Jazilyn on May 8, 2012.

Photo: Greatamericanphotocontest.com

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable After an Attack

Maryland's highest court declares pit bulls "inherently dangerous" in landmark ruling.

On April 8, 2014 the governor signed a bill abrogating this Court of Appeals decision.
On August 21, 2012 the high court narrowed this decision by excluding cross-bred pit bulls.

Tracey v. Solesky
Baltimore, MD - In January, DogsBite.org announced our filing of an amicus brief in a landmark Maryland appeals case, Tracey v. Solesky, in hopes of expanding more liability out to landlords when a tenant's pit bull attacks. The case involves the parents of a young boy seeking damages for injuries inflicted by a pit bull owned by a landlord's tenant. Also at issue is the "dangerousness" of pit bulls being "well-recognized," as determined in the 1998 case, Matthews v. Amberwood.

Read: The DogsBite.org amicus brief | Watch: Oral arguments 01-09-12

In Matthews, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled in a 4-3 vote that the landlord could have taken steps to abate the danger of a pit bull kept by a tenant when the landlord knew of the dog's presence and was aware of the dog's dangerousness. It was our hope that the Solesky opinion would expand Matthews further. On April 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals, in another 4-3 vote, did expand it and with great clarity by attaching strict liability when a pit bull or pit bull-cross attacks.

Tracey v. Solesky
No. 53, September Term 2012, Opinion by Cathell, J.
STRICT LIABILITY ADOPTED IN RESPECT TO ATTACKS ON HUMANS BY PIT BULL DOGS AND CROSS-BRED PIT BULL DOGS.

Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull cross, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull's presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has a right to prohibit such dogs on leased premises) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull, that person is liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner's or lessor's premises. In that case a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence. When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.

Upon receiving the Court's opinion, attorney Kevin A. Dunne, a principal at the law firm Ober Kaler, who represented the Solesky family, told the Baltimore Sun, "the Court of Appeals decision will likely to cause there to be fewer pit bull maulings of the citizens of the State of Maryland." Dunne said the high court's decision "didn't say pit bulls are banned. It makes the owner of the dog financially responsible for the injuries caused. It affects you if your dog hurts somebody else."

The Opinion Broken Down

The Court's opinion opens with the 1916 mauling of a young child by a pit bull, demonstrating just how long this dog breed has been attacking Maryland children. Furthermore, the attack on 10-year old John L. Clark illustrates the manner in which pit bulls attack resulting in many high courts determining that pit bull-type dogs pose a grave danger to the public: "The pit bull refused to release the boy until a witness picked up a 'scantling' and struck the dog, killing it."

The writer of the Court's opinion, Judge Dale R. Cathell, then states:

Over the last thirteen years, there have been no less than seven instances of serious maulings by pit bulls upon Maryland residents resulting in either serious injuries or death that have reached the appellate courts of this State, including the two boys attacked by the pit bull in the present case. Five of the pit bull attacks in Maryland have been brought to the attention of this Court, and two have reached the Court of Special Appeals.

The Court next spells out the details of these cases, which combined led to the Solesky opinion. The most simple explanation of the Solesky opinion is located on page 8:

We are modifying the Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull's owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

Further into the opinion, the Court addresses Matthews in more detail and how the Court "began our modification of the old common-law rule with respect to dog attack cases with our strong dicta in Matthews, supra, highlighting the particular characteristics of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls." And, "the language of that case clearly forecasted the direction the Court might take in the proper case. This is that case," the Court wrote, referring to Solesky. In Matthews, the Court stated:

The extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized. "Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals." Giaculli v. Bright, 584 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.App. 1991). Indeed, it has been judicially noted that pit bulls "bit[e] to kill without signal" (Starkey v. Township of Chester, 628 F. Supp. 196, 197 (E.D. Pa. 1986)), are selectively bred to have very powerful jaws, high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness, a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack, and a greater propensity to bite humans than other breeds ... ("pit bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard ... [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior ... [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks ... coupled with an unpredictable nature" and that "[o]f the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks ... [in the period between July 1983 and April 1989], 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs"). Pit bull dogs have even been considered weapons.

The Court next compiles evidence of the breed's dangerousness, starting with the "special report" issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, and the recent medical injury study, "Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs," published in 2011. The Court points out that although the CDC did not recommend breed-specific regulation, it did state: "...laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs should be promulgated and enforced vigorously."

Assembling more evidence of the breed's dangerousness, the Court draws upon cases from other jurisdictions that address the inherent viciousness of pit bulls, including the high court rulings of City of Toledo v. Tellings, Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, The Florida Bar v. Pape, McNeely v. United States and finally, The Colorado Dog Fanciers v. The City and County of Denver. Many portions cited in the opinion can be found on the Appellate Court Decisions page.

Concerning arguments raised by pit bull owners in Colorado Dog Fanciers, the Court provides the following footnote: "Some are similar to the arguments made in the appellant or amicus' briefs filed in the present case by supporters of pit bulls. In light of Maryland's situation, we find those particular arguments unpersuasive. (Notably, in Solesky, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wrote the brief in opposition of the young boy nearly killed by a pit bull.)

In this same footnote, the Court adds that the opposition to breed-specific laws has been present for years. But that the Court's opinion "does not ban pit bulls, but puts a greater responsibility for vicious dogs where pit bull advocates have long argued it should be - with the owners and others who have the power of control over such dogs. Our opinion imposes greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls."

Discussion

Given the misleading slogan of "punish the deed" by pit bull owners, advocates and national animal groups -- misleading in that victims often cannot pursue civil claims after a violent attack unless the owner knew the dog had the "propensity to be dangerous" and/or, as in the case of Solesky, the pit bull owner's debts were discharged after filing bankruptcy -- one can only imagine how many Maryland pit bull owners and landlords are extremely alarmed by the Court's opinion.

The fact is, "It's the owner not the breed," is a theme perpetuated by the owners of dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls, to help maintain the existence of arcane "one free bite" rules and other obscene loopholes that often free these owners of any civil or criminal liability after their dog attacks once and even a second time! In a nutshell, such dog owners do not want their dogs blamed nor do they want to be on the hook from a financial or criminal liability standpoint.

Reading the Court's footnote in regards to this brings to mind two phrases, "Be careful what you ask for" and "payback is hell." Pit bull owners and "others who have the power of control over such dogs" (specifically landlords) in the State of Maryland are indeed going to be paying back to victims of violent pit bull maulings due to this opinion, which explicitly modified Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bulls and pit bull-crosses against humans.

The Dissent

There really is only one part of the dissent worth discussing, as parts about the "hysteria regarding pit bulls" and the "media has demonized pit bulls" are on par with the invalidity of the Nanny dog myth. That part is called judicial activism or as the author of the dissent, Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. wrote, "legislating from the bench." The Solesky opinion, however, was not shaped out of thin air. It was developed over many rulings and was specifically "forecasted" in Matthews.

We do expect national animal groups, particularly the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, to bring their pro-pit bull propaganda to the Maryland General Assembly during its next session in an effort to derail the Solesky ruling. Yet, this effort may prove difficult. Their fight will not be to derail a statewide pit bull law, such as Ohio's former law, their fight will be to derail a liability law that holds the owners of pit bulls and landlords financially responsible after an attack.

Getting these votes is going to be a lot tougher than it was in Ohio. For instance, "Dear Maryland State Representative, it is cruel and unusual punishment that pit bull owners are automatically held financially responsible after their dog mauls a person causing permanent disfiguring injuries and sometimes even death. This type of singling out of pit bulls is discriminatory legislation similar to racial profiling. My pit bull would never snap, but even if it did, I should not be held liable."

Background:

The case of Matthews v. Amberwood involved a 2-year old boy and his mother, Shanita Matthews, visiting the leased apartment of Shelly Morton. Morton took care of her boyfriend's pit bull, named Rampage. Numerous complaints of the dog acting aggressively had been reported to Morton's landlord who took no action. The complex also had a "no pet" policy. While Matthews was visiting Morton inside her dwelling in February of 1994, Rampage savagely attacked her son, Tevin Williams. He later died at a hospital. Though the attack occurred inside Morton's unit -- not in a "common" area -- the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling and held the landlord liable. The Court wrote: "Under the present circumstances, however, where a landlord retained control over the matter of animals in the tenant's apartment, coupled with the knowledge of past vicious behavior by the animal, the extremely dangerous nature of pit bull dogs, and the foreseeability of harm to persons and property in the apartment complex, the jury was justified in finding that the landlord had a duty to the plaintiffs and that the duty was breached."

Judge Cathell, who wrote the Solesky opinion, dissented in Matthews. In the Matthews opinion, the Court of Appeals did not hold Morton, the dog's keeper, or the child's mother, Shanita Matthews, negligent. Specifically, the dissent states: "Thus, the negligence of the tenant Morton, and any possible negligence on the part of Matthews, were simply concurrent causes of the injuries and death of Tevin. They were not superseding causes." The dissenters in Matthews disagreed with the majority, which held that the superseding cause for the child's injuries and death was the landlord. Additionally, the dissent believed that Morton had sole control over the premise where the injury occurred (a private dwelling, as opposed to a "common" area) and sole control over
the dog, not the landlord.

So, how did Judge Cathell go from a dissent 14 years ago to a majority on this legal issue today? This is what is so beautiful about the development of the law. Sometimes one never knows. We would like to think that the continued carnage wrought by pit bulls over the past 14 years has something to do with it.

DogsBite blog ::