At the start of a dog bite case, each of the 2 parties sends a list of questions to the opposing party. Those questions are called the interrogatories.
What is each party supposed to do with those interrogatories?
Each party is supposed to answer the listed questions in writing.
What sort of questions get sent to the plaintiff, the person that filed the personal injury claim?
The person that filed the claim is expected to come forward with evidence of his or her injuries and treatment. At the same time, that claimant/plaintiff is supposed to share information regarding a claimed loss of income. For that reason, the defendant would send the plaintiff questions similar to those on the following list:
• Where did the incident take place? What were you doing when the dog bit you?
• Where did you seek treatment? Were there any witnesses?
• To what extent did you suffer a loss of income?
What sort of questions get sent to the defendant?
Those questions come from the plaintiff, who wants a different set of facts. The plaintiff also wants to prove the defendant liable for the injuries that were caused by the dog’s bite. These are the sorts of questions that might be asked by the plaintiff.
• How old is your dog? What is the breed of your dog? What is your dog’s weight?
• What is the name of your veterinarian? Does your dog’s history include mention of any earlier attack or biting incident?
An inappropriate question
The plaintiff should have no reason to ask the defendant about any injuries. Unless the dog’s attack seemed like an effort to kill the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not expected to fight back. Certainly, the use of pepper spray, which was used by at least one dog bite victim, would weaken the plaintiff’s claim.
Is it ever appropriate to send a second set of interrogatories?
That could be necessary, if not all the questions were answered completely and satisfactorily in response to the first set. If a plaintiff or a defendant has access to legal counsel, that member of the legal profession should be able to identify the need for more interrogatories.
For instance, it is possible that the victim is self-employed. In that case, the information on the lost income might seem inadequate. A lawyer might feel that the victim should offer more information, in order to substantiate the claimed loss.
In that case, as per Injury Lawyer in Milton the defendant could request more information. The victim/plaintiff could consult with an attorney and decide what information would offer the extent to which he or she had suffered a loss of income. The plaintiff’s cooperative attitude would help to strengthen the argument that he or she has made, regarding a fair compensation.