$70,000 Settlement: Delivery Driver Injured in New Hampshire Dog Bite Incident

A New Hampshire personal injury case involving a delivery driver illustrates how a seemingly minor dog bite can escalate into significant financial exposure when the dog owner’s conduct demonstrates reckless disregard for public safety.

This case resulted in a $70,000 settlement, driven not by the severity of the physical wounds but by the defendant’s long history of ignoring abatement orders, failing to vaccinate the dog, and allowing a known-dangerous animal to roam unrestrained while expecting visitors.

Case Overview

The client was a delivery driver working in Hillsborough County. While making a routine package delivery to a residence, the client was attacked by the homeowner’s dog without warning. The driver suffered two minor puncture wounds, one to the lower back and one to the calf. Although the injuries did not require stitches, they triggered an immediate rabies protocol because the dog was unvaccinated at the time of the attack.

The delivery driver contacted Apis Law seeking guidance on medical bills, lost time from work, for a dog bite, and seeking a settlement against a homeowner known in the area for keeping an aggressive dog. What began as a modest injury case soon developed into a significant claim once the dog’s history, abatement records, and vaccination lapse were uncovered.

Key Facts and Background

This incident occurred during a standard residential delivery. The client approached the home after confirming that the homeowner had ordered the package. Without any growling, barking, or visible warning, the dog lunged from behind the homeowner and bit the client twice.

The physical injuries were modest. The two puncture wounds were bruised and swollen but did not require sutures. However, because the dog’s rabies vaccinations had lapsed, and because the homeowner had no proof of current immunizations, the client was immediately directed to undergo full rabies post-exposure prophylaxis. That protocol included painful immune globulin injections, a complete vaccination series, and more than $26,000 in medical expenses.

Apis Law’s investigation uncovered a critical set of facts:

• The same dog had previously bitten a person.

• The dog had attacked another dog.

• Local authorities issued abatement notices as a result of those past incidents.

• The homeowner allowed the dog to remain unrestrained despite this documented history.

• Before delivery, the homeowner was aware that the rabies vaccination had lapsed.

• Even after the new attack, the homeowner delayed reporting the bite until instructed by a veterinarian.

These facts formed the backbone of the liability and damages argument. The physical wounds were modest; the owner’s conduct was not.

Legal Issues and Challenges

Although New Hampshire’s dog bite statuteRSA 466:19, imposes strict liability, meaning the plaintiff does not need to prove negligence, the damages component still requires careful development. The opposing insurer initially argued this was a “minor bite” case with relatively low exposure. They characterized the wounds as superficial and downplayed the impact of the rabies injections.

The insurer’s anticipated defenses included:

• Arguing the injuries were temporary and without lasting impairment.

• Claiming the rabies protocol was precautionary rather than medically necessary.

• Minimizing the psychological trauma associated with an aggressive dog attack.

• Suggesting that past incidents were irrelevant because they did not involve a delivery driver.

In reality, the prior attacks and abatement notices were central to establishing wanton conduct, a legal standard under New Hampshire case law that permits enhanced compensatory damages when a defendant acts with reckless disregard for safety. The challenge lay in demonstrating that the dog was not merely unpredictable but had been identified as dangerous years before this attack—and yet the owner failed to restrain or vaccinate it.

The final legal challenge was ensuring that the insurer understood the exposure presented by the rabies vaccination lapse, the abatement history, and the reckless handling of a known dangerous animal.

Strategy and Litigation Approach to Dog Bite Claim

Apis Law approached the case with a focused strategy: establish liability under RSA 466:19, then prove wanton conduct to support enhanced damages. The firm gathered and organized:

• Police reports from the 2021 and 2022 incidents

• Animal control abatement notices

• Veterinary records confirming lapsed vaccinations

• Photographs of the wounds and treatment

• Medical records detailing the immune globulin and vaccine series

• Statements documenting the homeowner’s failure to restrain the dog

By assembling these records early, the firm converted the case from a “simple dog bite” into a “reckless owner case.” Wanton conduct became the central narrative.

Apis Law also utilized the medical cost structure to demonstrate that even minor bites can result in substantial bills if the animal is unvaccinated. Rabies immune globulin alone costs thousands of dollars per dose, and the series requires ongoing follow-up. This helped counter the defense's claim that damages were limited because the puncture wounds were minor.

Throughout the negotiations, the firm emphasized the need for exposure beyond standard compensatory damages, given the reckless and repetitive nature of the owner’s behavior. The firm prepared the case as if it would be tried, developing a coherent storyline supported by records, testimony, and statutory arguments.

The insurer eventually understood that a jury could find wantonness based on the dog’s documented history and the owner’s continuing disregard for mandatory rabies vaccination laws. That exposure created the leverage needed to resolve the case on favorable terms.

Outcome and Settlement of Delivery Driver's Dog Bite

The case settled for $70,000, a strong result for a client whose physical injuries were limited to two puncture wounds that did not require sutures and no chronic injury. The key driver of value was not the severity of the scars, but the reckless and repeated conduct of the dog’s owner.

The insurer avoided the risk of enhanced compensatory damages at trial, and the client received a substantial recovery to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and general damages.

As always, past results do not guarantee outcomes in future cases. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.

What This Case Means for New Hampshire Clients

This case provides several important lessons for anyone injured by a dog in New Hampshire:

1. Strict liability applies. Under RSA 466:19, dog owners are automatically responsible for injuries caused by their animal if the injured person was lawfully on the property.

2. Owner conduct matters. When a dog owner disregards safety rules, ignores abatement orders, or fails to vaccinate the dog, the damages increase.

3. Rabies treatment is expensive. Even minor bites can result in significant medical expenses if rabies immunization is required.

4. Prior attacks strengthen liability. A documented history of aggression shows foreseeability—a key factor in establishing wanton conduct.

5. Experienced counsel can identify hidden value. The difference between a low-value dog bite claim and a substantial settlement often lies in uncovering the facts that insurers overlook or downplay.

For individuals bitten by a dog in New Hampshire, the right legal strategy can make a decisive difference. Early involvement from a litigation-focused firm helps secure crucial records, preserve evidence, and build a compelling liability narrative.

How Our Firm Handles Cases Like This

Apis Law handles dog bite cases with a disciplined, litigation-ready strategy rooted in New Hampshire practice. The firm conducts a thorough investigation, obtains all prior incident records, and prepares the matter as if it will go to trial. This approach increases leverage, forces insurers to confront their exposure, and promotes fair settlements for clients.

The firm handles cases throughout New Hampshire, including Manchester, Goffstown, Bedford, and Hillsborough County. Clients receive direct communication, strategic guidance, and unwavering advocacy throughout the entire process. Individuals who have been injured by a dog or are facing significant medical bills are encouraged to contact our firm for a consultation to discuss their options.

These results are based on the unique facts of this case. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. This article is for informational purposes only.