Mark Adams vs. Kay S. Adams, et al

Case Background

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff Mark Adams filed a premises liability lawsuit in the Texas State, Fort Bend County, 240th District Court (Case number: 22-DCV-297660) after suffering injuries in a dog attack. Judge Surendran Pattel presided over the case, which centered on Adams’ claims that the Defendants failed to prevent the dog bite incident, leading to his injuries and damages.

Cause

Mark Adams, a Texas resident, suffered severe injuries in a dog attack lawsuit after three unrestrained dogs attacked him while he walked his own dog near his home in Sugar Land, Texas, on October 4, 2020. The dogs, owned by Defendants Kay S. Adams and Andrew C. Adams, charged through an open gate and violently bit both Adams and his dog. The dog bite incident knocked Adams to the ground, causing significant injuries that required surgery. His dog also suffered multiple bites, which required urgent veterinary care.

The dangerous dogs had a known history of aggression. The Defendants knew about their violent tendencies but failed to take proper precautions. Despite the risks, they left their gate open, allowing the dogs to roam freely

Injuries

The dog attack lawsuit resulted in severe physical injuries for Mark Adams. He suffered deep lacerations, extensive bruising, and required surgery. The dog bite injuries caused lasting pain, discomfort, and emotional distress. His injuries also led to substantial medical expenses and ongoing rehabilitation.

Adams’ dog sustained serious wounds, adding to his financial and emotional burden. The attack left Adams struggling with long-term recovery, making it difficult to resume normal

Damages

The dog attack lawsuit damages included medical expenses for surgery, rehabilitation, and follow-up treatments. Adams also faced veterinary costs for his injured dog. His injuries affected his ability to work, resulting in lost wages and financial hardship.

Beyond financial losses, the attack caused mental anguish, permanent scarring, and a reduced quality of life. The severity of his dog bite injuries made future medical treatment a continuing concern.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Mark Adams
    • Counsel for Plaintiff:  Carey S Davis
  • Defendant(s): Andrew C. Adams | Kay S. Adams
    • Counsel for Defendants: Daragh John Carter 

 Claims

Mark Adams filed a premises liability lawsuit against Kay S. Adams and Andrew C. Adams, holding them responsible for failing to control their dangerous dogs. He argued that they violated Texas Health and Safety Code § 822.041(5), which defines “dangerous dogs” as those that make unprovoked attacks.

The lawsuit alleged that the Defendants failed to secure their property, left the gate open, and knowingly allowed aggressive dogs to roam free. Adams sought compensation for his dog bite injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.

Defense

The Defendants denied all allegations in the dog attack lawsuit and demanded strict proof of Adams’ claims. They argued that their insurance provider had been declared impaired and sought protection under the Texas Guaranty Act. This law required Adams to exhaust all other insurance options before seeking compensation from them.

They also claimed that Adams failed to meet all legal conditions for recovery. The defense raised several affirmative defenses, including contributory negligence, arguing that Adams’ own actions—or those of third parties, such as Cesar Patino Landscaping and Andres Patino—contributed to his injuries.

The Defendants further contended that Adams’ damages resulted from a sudden emergency, unavoidable accident, or superseding cause beyond their control. They alleged that Adams had pre-existing injuries unrelated to the dog attack lawsuit and failed to mitigate his damages. Additionally, they sought to limit his compensation to actual medical expenses incurred, rather than billed amounts, under Texas law

They also invoked Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §18.091, requiring Adams to prove any lost earnings in net terms after tax deductions. The Defendants requested credit for any prior settlements, insurance payouts, or other offsets that could reduce their liability. They ultimately asked the Court to dismiss the premises liability lawsuit, rule in their favor, and award them legal costs.

Jury Verdict

On February 10, 2025, the jury ruled in favor of Plaintiff Mark Adams. The Court ordered Defendant Kay S. Adams to pay $25,296.00 in damages in the dog attack lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com