Gordon v. Malcolm

$70,000 Verdict

Date of Verdict: Feb. 5.

Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny No. GD-16-015611.

Judge: Michael A. Della Vecchia.

Type of Action: Dog bite, animal control.

Injuries: Facial disfigurement, psychological trauma.

Plaintiffs Counsel: Brendan B. Lupetin, Meyers Evans Lupetin & Unatin, Pittsburgh.

Plaintiffs Expert: James M. Hepburn, clinical psychology, Pittsburgh.

Defense Counsel: Thomas A. McDonnell, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, Pittsburgh; Tara L. Maczuzak, DiBella Geer McAllister Best, Pittsburgh.

Comment:

On Aug. 26, 2015, plaintiff Blake Gordon, 6, was bitten in the face by a German shepherd mix at a residence in Carnegie. The residence was owned by Robert Malcolm IV and Marla Malcolm. Lauren Ellis, who was Blake’s caretaker for the summer, had taken the child to the Malcolms’ home to visit their son, Cian Malcolm, who was Ellis’ boyfriend.

Blake’s parents, Greg Gordon and Corrine Gordon, acting in Blake’s behalf, sued the Malcolms and Ellis. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants negligently failed to properly control the dog. According to the Gordons, Ellis took Blake to the Malcolms’ residence without telling or getting permission from the Gordons. The Gordons alleged that, before the accident, the Malcolms knew or should have known that their family dog possessed a vicious propensity. The defendants stipulated to liability, and the case was tried on the issues of damages.

Blake was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was admitted and diagnosed with lacerations under his right eye and lower lip. He received sutures to the lacerations. Following his discharge, Blake saw a plastic surgeon on a few occasions. Blake’s parents alleged that the attack left permanent scarring under his right eye and lower lip.

Plaintiffs counsel maintained that Blake suffered psychological trauma as a result of the attack. According to the plaintiffs, Blake expressed fear about seeing Ellis, Cian Malcolm and the dog in the future. He became defiant during his second-grade year after the attack. Blake underwent therapy for approximately a year to help him process the trauma of the dog attack. His mother alleged that she did not notice any change in Blake as a result of the therapy.

Plaintiffs expert in clinical psychology testified that Blake suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the dog attack. According to the expert, Blake’s symptoms associated with the dog attack have already resulted in him being self-conscious. This is likely to have an impact on his self-image and peer relationships and possibly his dating experiences, the expert stated.

The expert testified that Blake has a fear of re-injury and of engaging in novel experiences, which may affect his employment choices and his overall social development. The expert discussed how he has a strategy of silent coping, which will lead to feelings of being “different,” increased social isolation, poor self-image, difficulties trusting others and diminished confidence overall. The expert concluded that this could have negative impact on Blake’s overall success and happiness throughout his life.

Plaintiffs sought damages for past and future pain and suffering. The defense disputed the extent of Blake’s alleged psychological impact from the dog attack. The defense maintained that it was speculative to predict Blake’s future psychological well-being, since he was so young. The defendants entered into a confidential agreement as to the amounts each party would be responsible for, in light of a plaintiff’s verdict.

Blake was determined to receive $70,000.

This report is based on information that was provided by counsel of Cian Malcolm, Marla Malcolm and Robert Malcolm. Plaintiffs counsel and Ellis’ counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.

—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication