A man’s appeal in a dog bite case has been struck down by the court, with significant implications for future cases involving animal attacks. Vernon J. Tatum, Jr. filed the complaint in the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish on September 11, 2020, against William Peoples and Catina Peoples following an incident where he was bitten by their dog.
On September 13, 2019, Tatum was walking near Demontluzin Street and Gentilly Boulevard when he was attacked by the Peoples' dog while passing their residence at 3727 Gentilly Boulevard. Following the attack, Tatum approached the home to inform the residents of his injuries and was treated with hydrogen peroxide by Catina Peoples. Believing that the attack resulted from negligence on part of the Peoples for not securing their yard gate properly, Tatum filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 25, 2022, arguing that they were not liable as Tatum could not meet his burden of proof under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2321. The district court granted this motion on October 12, 2023, concluding that Tatum failed to establish that the Peoples knew or should have known about their dog's propensity to bite.
Tatum appealed this decision pro se but faced several hurdles. His brief contained insulting language towards various parties involved in the case including the presiding judge and opposing counsel. Consequently, portions of his brief were stricken from public record due to violations of Rule 2-12.2(B) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and upheld the district court's decision. The judges found no genuine issue of material fact existed as Tatum did not provide sufficient evidence showing that the Peoples' dog posed an unreasonable risk of harm or had aggressive tendencies prior to this incident. The court also noted that subsequent repairs made to secure the yard gate could not be used as evidence of prior negligence under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 407.
Tatum argued that housing a German Shepherd behind an unsecured gate was inherently risky given their reputation as aggressive dogs. However, this claim lacked substantial legal backing since previous cases considered factors such as whether injuries could have been prevented or if there were any signs of aggression from the dog before determining liability.
Ultimately, without concrete evidence supporting his claims and having failed to file a formal opposition against summary judgment despite being given ample opportunity for discovery—Tatum's appeal was dismissed.
The attorneys involved in this case include Timothy G. Schafer representing William and Catina Peoples from Schafer & Schafer law firm while Vernon J. Tatum represented himself pro se. The case was presided over by Honorable Ethel Simms Julien at Civil District Court Division “N-8” with Chief Judge Terri F. Love along with Judges Rachael D Johnson and Nakisha Ervin-Knott overseeing proceedings at Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeal under Case ID No: 2023-CA-0807.