Pit Bull Attack Lawsuit Ends in $78K Verdict in CT
Table of Contents
Case Background
On the morning of November 11, 2022, Timothy Lowell drove to a property at 30 Cross Drive in East Hartford to pick up his co-worker, Casey Harvey, for work. Lowell expected Harvey to be waiting outside, but when he didn’t appear, Lowell called him. As Lowell walked toward the house, the front door suddenly swung open and a pit bull named Archer charged through it. The dog lunged at Lowell, bit him, and caused serious injuries. The property, owned by the estate of William Belch, had been under the control of Patricia Biddle, who served as the executrix of the estate and also lived there.
Lowell filed a lawsuit against Biddle—both in her personal capacity and as executor of the estate—as well as against Harvey. He alleged strict liability under Connecticut's dog bite statute, negligence, and recklessness. The case proceeded to a jury trial in April 2025.
Cause that led to the events
The Plaintiff alleged that both Patricia Biddle and Casey Harvey were owners or keepers of the dog. He claimed that they had known about the dog’s violent tendencies before the attack, yet failed to restrain it or follow local animal control restrictions. The lawsuit pointed to prior incidents of aggression involving the dog and accused the Defendants of recklessly disregarding warnings, including official orders from East Hartford Animal Control that required Archer to be muzzled and leashed when around others.
Injuries suffered
Lowell suffered extensive injuries as a result of the dog attack. Medical records detailed puncture wounds and macerated lacerations to his scrotum and testicles, damage to the dartos fascia, significant blood loss, and eventual surgical repair. His injuries required emergency medical care, hospitalization, anaesthesia, and continuing urological treatment. Lowell also experienced scarring, chronic pain, and emotional trauma.
He further reported a fear of rabies exposure and long-term loss of enjoyment of life. Due to his injuries, Lowell missed work and claimed a loss of earning capacity.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
At trial, the Plaintiff’s attorneys presented detailed testimony about the dog’s prior behaviour, including previous attacks and the town’s imposed restrictions. Lowell’s side emphasized that both Defendants had ignored animal control directives and knowingly let a dangerous dog roam unrestrained. He argued that the dog’s history made the attack foreseeable and preventable.
The defense pushed back, disputing whether the Defendants had truly been aware of Archer’s danger or responsible for his behaviour that morning. They also challenged the extent of the injuries and attempted to cast doubt on the link between the attack and the full scope of damages Lowell claimed.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Timothy Lowell
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Meghan A. Woods
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Howard A. Selinger
Defendant(s): Patricia Biddle
Counsel for Defendant(s): Self represented
Key Arguments by Counsel
Lowell’s legal team portrayed the attack as the result of gross negligence and repeated disregard for public safety. They leaned heavily on documented animal control warnings and a pattern of past attacks by the dog. Counsel argued that Biddle and Harvey had created a foreseeable risk by failing to secure the dog.
The defense appeared to argue that the dog’s behaviour was unanticipated and that the incident could not have been prevented. There was also an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the injuries and to avoid responsibility under the strict liability statute.
Claims Asserted
Strict Liability (Dog Bite Statute):
Lowell invoked Connecticut General Statutes §22-357, which imposes liability on dog owners and keepers for any injuries caused by their dogs, provided the victim was not trespassing or provoking the animal.
Negligence and Premises Liability:
Lowell claimed that Biddle and Harvey had been negligent by allowing a dangerous dog to roam freely and unrestrained.
Recklessness (Counts Three and Four):
Lowell alleged that both Defendants had acted recklessly by ignoring legal orders to muzzle and contain the dog, arguing that their conduct had risen above simple negligence.
Defense Arguments
The Defendants denied that they had been responsible for the dog at the time of the attack and disputed being considered “keepers” under the statute. They also claimed that the Plaintiff might have provoked the dog or entered the property improperly, though the jury ultimately rejected that theory.
The special defenses suggested that Lowell had assumed the risk or that the responsibility rested with someone else. They also implied that he may have known about the dog and proceeded despite the risk.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a verdict in favour of the Plaintiff on the strict liability count and awarded $78,440.50 in total damages. They rejected Lowell’s claims of recklessness, declining to impose punitive damages on either Defendant. While the jury found both Biddle and Harvey legally responsible as keepers of the dog, it did not find that their conduct met the higher threshold for willful or wanton misconduct.