Bite to calf with mental trauma attracts an award of close to £5000

We represented the Claimant in an action brought against the Defendant for damages for injuries and losses arising out of a dog bite incident.

On 10.11.2021 the Claimant walked out of her property onto the public highway with her dog, when the Defendant’s dog ran across from the opposite side of the street and bit the Claimant on the right calf.

The Claimant suffered a dog bite injury to her right calf, with bruising and lacerations and has ongoing scarring and alleged that the incident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence and/or breach of statutory duty.

Work was undertaken to fully quantify the Claimant’s claim for damages.

Medical records were obtained, with additional communications being unavoidably incurred with the Claimant’s GP, whose software had redacted the GP records, before further copies were provided which had less redaction.

Expert nominations in the field of A&E Medicine were provided to the Defendant, with no objections being raised.

A report was obtained from Mr Aslam, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, to include a review of records. Mr Aslam opined that the Claimant had sustained dog bite type of wounds over the back of her right calf as a result of the accident on the 10/11/2021 which healed in approximately 4 to 6 weeks. There was mild to moderate pain for the same duration of time. There are visible scars. 2 vertical scars measuring 1 cm and 2 cms. There is also an area of mild skin discoloration that measures approximately 5 cms in diameter. The above are causing mild cosmetic disfigurement. These scars are due to the accident. The scars will become pale over a period of approximately 2 years from the date of the accident. After this period the scars will become very pale and the cosmetic disfigurement will become very minor. This very minor cosmetic disfigurement will then remain permanently. Mr Aslam opined that the Claimant was nervous about walking her dog, particularly when it is dark and recommended that an opinion be obtained from a Clinical Psychologist.

As a result of Mr Aslam’s recommendations, expert Psychologist nominations were obtained and provided to the Defendant, with no objections being raised.

A report was obtained from Dr MacCarthy, Clinical Psychologist. Dr MacCarthy opined that the Claimant was shocked and shaken by the incident and that she had experienced an increased level of wariness/cautiousness about the risks presented by dogs from the time of the incident that was attributable to the index incident; that her increased wariness/cautiousness about the risks presented by other dogs represented a normal, functional, and adaptive emotional reaction to the incident that was not clinically significant; on the balance of probabilities, that she had also experienced an understandable level of self-consciousness about the appearance of the scars that have been left by the dog bites; her self-consciousness about the appearance of her scars was not clinically significant; on the balance of probabilities, that psychological impact of the index incident would not meet criteria to warrant a diagnosis of any DSM-5 disorder.

Full details of the Claimant’s losses were obtained and a Schedule of Loss was drafted.

This was disclosed to the Defendant, with the Claimant’s medical evidence, with the Claimant making a Part 36 offer in the sum of £4,927.36 on 07.08.2023, which the Defendant accepted on 21.08.2023.