A Middletown Superior Court jury handed down a recent defense verdict in a dog bite case that hinged on whether a pit bull had a history of attacks. A six-person jury found for the defendants after deliberating for 75 minutes Aug. 9.

At issue in Helm v. Hanson was not whether the dog Jax had bitten Anders Helm on the left calf, but whether the dog had bitten other people in the past. Helm, who was Scott Hanson's next-door neighbor, was bitten in May 2017 after he was invited for a social visit into Hanson's home. That July, Helm sued for negligence, seeking $1.5 million for injuries, medical expenses and emotional distress.

In an amended Aug. 6 lawsuit, Helm asserts he was bitten in the upper left calf and suffered bruising, swelling, and redness, as well as an inability to extended his left leg and knee.

Helm told authorities and the jury that Hanson had previously told him to be careful when Jax was in the yard because the dog was vicious. Hanson denied ever saying that.

In the end, it was an issue of credibility, according to Edward Gasser of the Avon-based Gasser Law Firm, who represented Linda Hanson, Scott Hanson's mother and the owner of the house. Gasser said, "If the jury thought Mr. Helm was telling the truth about such a conversation, there would have been a plaintiff verdict."

The dog, both sides agreed, had two prior incidents involving people, Gasser said, but the parties disagreed as to whether the incidents involved biting. Helm alleged Hanson told him the dog had bitten two other people. Hanson disputed that.

The plaintiff said the dog had growled and jumped on people, biting them on two different occasions. Gasser said they were harmless incidents and that the dog was being overly playful.

"The plaintiff's lawyer hinged everything on the negligence claim, which meant they had to prove the dog owners knew the dog was vicious before this incident. They did not prove that," Gasser said.

Paul Morello Jr., an attorney with Cromwell-based Donovan & Morello, told the Connecticut Law Tribune this week that he decided to sue for negligence in order to include Linda Hanson as a defendant. A strict liability case would have applied only to Scott Hanson, who was uninsured. Strict liability also would have dealt with just the biting incident and not the dog's alleged previous behavior.

"This was treated as a strict premises liability case, and I'm obviously disappointed," Morello said. "It boiled down to credibility. I think the jury was looking for a similar incident in the past where the dog had bitten someone. If [the jurors believed] the dog had bitten someone in the past, then that's a different story."

Representing Scott Hanson was Jason Lewellyn of Farrell Geenty Sheeley Boccalatte & Guarino of Middletown. Lewellyn declined to comment for this report.