Woman Awarded $5.4 Million After Dog, Who Had a History of Biting Other People, Attacked Her at L.A. Animal Shelter

In a significant ruling by a Los Angeles County Superior Court, a jury awarded Genice Horta, 51, a sum of £5.4 million following a traumatic dog attack she sustained while working at an animal shelter. The decision came after a comprehensive 10-day trial where evidence was presented outlining the circumstances surrounding the attack.

Horta’s ordeal took place on September 23, 2020, when she was contracted by the HIT Living Foundation to transport a Belgian Malinois named Maximus from the East Valley Animal Shelter in Van Nuys, California, to Arizona. According to her lawsuit, she was not informed about the dog’s aggressive past, which included prior incidents of biting. The day of the attack, an employee at the shelter had mentioned that Maximus suffered from “kennel anxiety,” prompting Horta to offer the dog a treat laced with trazodone, a medication often used to alleviate anxiety in canines.

The situation took a swift turn when Maximus lunged at Horta, viciously biting her right hand and arm, resulting in severe injuries. Documentation presented in court revealed that Horta had to undergo six surgeries to repair the extensive damage to her bones and nerves. Unfortunately, she continues to suffer from lasting physical impairments following the incident.

Throughout the trial, contention arose over the alleged negligence of the East Valley Animal Shelter staff. Horta’s attorneys asserted that the employee had failed to appropriately inform her of the dog’s dangerous tendencies and did not take adequate measures to control Maximus during her interaction with the animal. Testimony from this employee suggested that he had warned her not to approach the dog with the treat, as captured in a video shown during the proceedings. However, Horta maintained that she received no warning about the pet’s prior aggressive behaviours, which had previously sent individuals to the hospital.

California state law mandates that animal shelters disclose a pet’s history of aggression or severe injuries to potential adopters or handlers. Evidence provided by Horta’s legal team indicated that Maximus had a documented history of aggressive behaviour, including reports of him “viciously biting and snapping at people walking past his enclosure.” Staff members had even noted in writing to “USE EXTREME CAUTION!!!” regarding the dog when discussing its temperament.

As the verdict was announced, the jury concluded that the city of Los Angeles was 62.5% responsible for the incident, while the rescue group involved bore 25% of the liability. Horta was found to share 12.5% of the blame, highlighting a complex interplay of responsibility in this unfortunate case.

The attorney representing Horta, Ivan Puchalt, emphasised that the outcome of the case exposed a series of alarming oversights concerning the adoption and management of a dangerous dog. Increasing awareness of such issues, Puchalt’s statements reinforced the necessity for greater accountability in municipal animal shelters.

This case marks a troubling trend of legal ramifications for animal shelters in the city of Los Angeles. According to reports, this incident is not isolated; there have been at least two other similar cases where plaintiffs have successfully received compensation for attacks by animals that had known aggressive histories. In one instance, Kristin Wright was awarded £3.25 million after being injured by a pit bull from a shelter, which had a previous history of biting its former owner. Similarly, Argelia Alvarado was granted £7.5 million following an attack by a pit bull adopted from a shelter that had previously harmed a jogger.

The Los Angeles Animal Services, which governs local animal shelters, has yet to provide any comments regarding Horta’s case or the jury’s decision. Meanwhile, the city continues to face scrutiny over its protocols related to animal safety and transparency in the adoption process.

This latest verdict may serve as a catalyst for change, prompting reassessments of existing practices within the city’s animal control framework to prevent future incidents and enhance the safety of both workers and potential adopters alike.