The alleged attack resulted in injuries serious enough to require surgery, according to the lawsuit. DeAngelis claims she was left with “significant scarring and disfigurement,” as well as pain, emotional distress and continuing medical expenses.
“Plaintiff’s injuries and resulting damages are permanent and continuing in nature,” the lawsuit states.
The complaint also says DeAngelis was “unable to perform her usual activities and duties for periods of time and may continue to suffer limitations in the future.”
At the center of DeAngelis’ legal argument is Whole Foods’ policy concerning animals inside its stores.
Her attorneys contend that the dog was not a trained service animal and did not otherwise qualify for admission under the grocery chain’s posted animal policy. According to the lawsuit, signs near the store entrance informed customers that pets were prohibited while distinguishing trained service animals from emotional-support animals.
The attorneys argue that Whole Foods employees had the ability to intervene if an unauthorized animal entered the store. Their claim is that the company failed to take action before the alleged attack occurred.
The complaint alleges that the dog entered through an area “monitored, staffed, supervised and/or controlled” by Whole Foods employees. Its presence, the filing says, was “open and visible.”
“The subject dog was present within the store for a sufficient period of time and under such circumstances that defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered its presence prior to the attack upon plaintiff,” the filing states.
DeAngelis’ lawsuit alleges that employees either knew or should have known the animal was inside the store. Her attorneys argue that employees had enough time to determine whether the dog was authorized to remain on the premises and, if necessary, order its removal.
The complaint further alleges that Whole Foods “routinely and knowingly” failed to properly control or regulate unauthorized animals inside the store, both on the day of the incident and before it.
Her attorneys also point to New York regulations concerning sanitation at retail food establishments. Those rules generally restrict live animals from certain operational areas of food stores, while providing exceptions for circumstances such as trained service animals.
According to the lawsuit, the dog involved in DeAngelis’ alleged attack did not fall under an applicable exception and therefore should not have been inside the store.
DeAngelis also maintains that she did nothing to provoke the animal.
The complaint states that she “did not provoke, threaten or otherwise engage” the dog in a manner that caused or contributed to the attack.
The lawsuit accuses Whole Foods of failing to adequately monitor the store, enforce its animal policy, properly train employees and take reasonable measures to protect customers from unauthorized animals.
Her attorneys characterize the incident and resulting injuries as “reasonably preventable,” arguing that proper enforcement of the company’s policies could have prevented the alleged attack.
Those allegations remain unproven. Whole Foods has not been found liable, and the company will have an opportunity to contest the claims concerning what its employees knew, whether the dog was authorized to be inside and whether the company bears responsibility for DeAngelis’ injuries.
DeAngelis is seeking the maximum amount of damages permitted under the law beyond the jurisdictional limits of lower courts. She is also seeking litigation costs. The complaint does not specify a particular dollar figure.
Whole Foods declined to comment to Mediaite, citing the pending litigation. Fox Business likewise did not provide Mediaite with a statement concerning the lawsuit.
DeAngelis joined Fox Business Network as a financial correspondent in April 2019. She currently co-hosts “The Big Money Show” alongside Taylor Riggs, Brian Brenberg and Dagen McDowell.
The case now places the alleged in-store attack, Whole Foods’ animal policies and the company’s responsibilities toward customers before a court, where the competing claims will be addressed through the legal process.
