W. Bradley “Brad” Parker has learned that some of the most important evidence in a personal injury case may have existed long before anyone was hurt. Records created months or even years earlier can reveal what someone knew about a potential danger, when they knew it, and whether they had an opportunity to prevent the harm that followed.
Medical records, inspection reports, maintenance histories, and other documents can reveal what someone knew about a dangerous condition before an injury ever occurred. Unlike recollections offered after the fact, these records were often created when no one anticipated a lawsuit.
For Brad, that distinction matters. When someone insists that an incident was entirely unexpected, he wants to understand whether the evidence supports that explanation.
One case involving a fourteen-year-old girl attacked by a neighbor’s dog illustrates why.
An Attack No One Should Have Had to Experience
The girl was standing at a friend’s front door when a dog from a neighboring home suddenly attacked her. The animal knocked her to the ground and bit her repeatedly before a neighbor was able to pull it away.
Her injuries were severe. She required eighteen sutures in her right leg and fourteen in her left. Months later, she began treatment with a plastic surgeon, including dermabrasion and steroid injections, to address the scarring.
But the consequences extended beyond her physical injuries. Being knocked to the ground and repeatedly bitten by a dog was a frightening experience that caused significant emotional distress.
As Brad investigated the circumstances surrounding the attack, an important question emerged: Had the dog’s owners known that the animal posed a danger?
During litigation, the owners maintained that the dog had never demonstrated aggressive behavior. According to their account, nothing in the animal’s history suggested that an attack like this might occur.
If that explanation were accurate, the incident might have appeared to be an entirely unforeseen tragedy.
But Brad wasn’t prepared to accept that conclusion without examining the evidence.
What the Veterinary Records Revealed
As part of the investigation, Brad’s team subpoenaed the dog’s veterinary records.
What they discovered directly contradicted the owners’ account.
The veterinarian had previously documented the animal as “extremely aggressive, barking, snapping, and lunging.” In fact, the dog had been described as one of the most dangerous animals the veterinary practice had ever handled.
More significantly, the records revealed that approximately six months before the attack, the veterinarian had spoken directly with one of the owners about the danger the dog presented.
The warning was specific.
The veterinarian believed the animal posed a high risk to children, including the owners’ own children or other children who might enter the home, and advised that the dog should be removed.
Despite that warning, the owners kept the animal.
Six months later, a fourteen-year-old girl suffered the very kind of injury the veterinarian had feared.
The records changed the understanding of the case. What the owners had characterized as an unprecedented incident was an attack preceded by documented aggressive behavior and a direct professional warning.
When Brad’s team presented those records to the homeowners’ insurance carrier, the carrier tendered its policy limits.
What This Case Reinforced
For Brad, this case illustrates why a thorough investigation must look beyond what people say happened.
The veterinary records did more than establish that the dog had behaved aggressively in the past. They helped answer a question central to understanding responsibility: What did the owners know about the danger, and when did they know it?
That distinction can be critical in serious injury cases. An accident that appears unavoidable may look very different when the evidence reveals earlier warnings, prior incidents, or opportunities to prevent the harm.
It also explains why Brad places such importance on obtaining original records rather than relying exclusively on statements made after an injury.
The people involved in an incident may have incomplete recollections, different perspectives, or reasons to describe events in a particular way. Documents created before the incident can provide an independent account of circumstances that might otherwise remain unknown.
The documents did not change what happened to her. They changed what could be established about why it happened and what might have prevented it.
Every case depends on its own facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in future cases.