Case Background
On April 24, 2021, what began as a routine social visit turned into a terrifying ordeal for Angela M. Bulkley. She had gone to the home of Bradley and Kathryn Luedtke in Trumbull, Connecticut. While she was lawfully on the premises as a guest, she walked toward the bathroom. At that moment, the Luedtkes’ two dogs attacked her.
Bulkley later recalled how the animals bit her repeatedly on both legs, her thighs, her hips, and even her right ear. The attack left her bleeding, disoriented, and in immediate need of emergency medical care.
She filed a lawsuit in April 2023, claiming the Luedtkes were legally responsible for their dogs’ actions. The case advanced in Superior Court at Bridgeport. The Luedtkes filed their answer in June 2023, and the matter eventually reached a jury trial in October 2024.
Cause
Bulkley’s complaint was grounded in Connecticut’s dog bite statute. The law imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries their animals cause, unless the injured person was trespassing, committing another tort, or provoking the dog.
Her attorney argued that Bulkley was a lawful guest, that she had not tormented or provoked the dogs, and that the Defendants were responsible under the statute.
The Luedtkes did not deny they owned the dogs or that Bulkley had been bitten. Their defense strategy focused instead on minimizing responsibility and questioning the extent of her claimed injuries.
Injury
Bulkley sustained multiple painful bite wounds. She presented evidence that the dogs tore into her legs, thighs, and hip area, causing permanent scarring and tissue loss. One of the bites reached her right ear, leaving disfigurement.
Doctors confirmed she needed emergency treatment, imaging, surgery, and follow-up care. She relied on prescription medication and physical therapy. The injuries limited her ability to work and perform daily activities. Beyond the physical toll, she also endured significant emotional trauma, including fear, anxiety, and embarrassment over her scars.
Damages
Bulkley sought compensation for:
Medical expenses: ambulance services, hospital care, surgery, and prescriptions.
Future medical care: ongoing treatment and possible future procedures.
Lost income: wages missed during recovery.
Pain and suffering: physical pain, mental anguish, and permanent disfigurement.
Loss of life enjoyment: restrictions on daily and recreational activities.
Her complaint emphasized that her injuries were permanent and continuing, leaving her with lasting scars and limitations
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Angela M. Bulkley
Counsel for Plaintiff: James A. Mahar
Experts for Plaintiff: Daniel Rudolph | Diana Desmornes | Giovanni Marzullo | Joseph Savage | Tito Vasquez | Michele Even | Susan Giampalmo | Jeremy Bill
Defendants: Bradley M. Luedtke | Kathryn Luedtke
Counsel for Defendant: Joseph R. Grippe
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Claims
Bulkley’s legal team framed the case as straightforward. The statute held dog owners accountable, and the facts showed she had been an invited guest. She had not trespassed or provoked the dogs. Her attorney highlighted her injuries, using medical records and photographs to illustrate the severity of the attack.
They stressed that the attack robbed her of not just her health but also her sense of safety in ordinary life. The Plaintiff’s side argued that the Luedtkes should be held fully responsible for the suffering their animals caused.
Defense’s Position
The defense, represented by attorney Joseph R. Grippe, admitted that the incident occurred but attempted to limit liability. They acknowledged that Bulkley was bitten but pressed the jury to question the extent of her injuries and whether all her claimed losses directly resulted from the incident. They also leaned on general defenses common in dog bite cases, suggesting that the situation might not have been as clear-cut as portrayed.
Jury Verdict
On October 24, 2024, the jury returned its decision. The panel found the verdict in favor of Angela M. Bulkley and against Bradley and Kathryn Luedtke.
The jury awarded her $235,000 in noneconomic damages. This figure reflected compensation for her pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of life enjoyment. The verdict did not separately list medical bills or lost wages, focusing instead on the human cost of the attack.
For Bulkley, the award represented recognition of the physical and emotional trauma she endured. For the Luedtkes, it marked a clear finding that Connecticut’s dog bite statute held them strictly responsible for the consequences of their dogs’ actions.
