I own the austrailian shephard that is my dog I was petsitting for him. OK, so it sounds like you agreed to care for his dog, in a reasonable way. You indicate nothing to suggest that you breached that promise, or that you were negligent.
He has brought his dog to me twice. on the second time his dog was here his dog attacked my dog two days before the owners came home. So his dog did the attacking, it was not your dog that attacked. You could very well have a valid claim against him for YOUR vet bills. Virginia enjoys a one free bite rule, but in this case, the owner apparently already had his one free bite, since his dog has attacked before.
when this gentleman came over to pick his dog up he told me his dog had been in two other fights previously before he even brought his dog to me. so he neglected to tell me his dog was dog aggressive. Yes, that would arguably have been negligent on his part - he prevented you from the informed consent of what you were caring for AND the ability to make appropriate decisions. (I suspect he didn't tell you because he thought you'd refuse to babysit the dog.)
I have written notes from my clients and my dogs groomer that I am a responsible individual and my groomer vouches that my dog is not dog aggressive.Excellent, and there is presumably no documentation of any prior attacks (nor was this one an attack by your dog).
He wants me to pay 315 dollars the 200 for his pet sitting fee and the 115 for his vet bills. I do not see a legal theory under which, on these facts, he could win should he sue you. First, under contract theory, he agreed to pay you $200 for petsitting. You did the petsitting as promised. He has to pay the $200. Yes, he can try to argue that you didn't provide competent petsitting, ergo the dog fight, but under the facts you have described, and if it is proper in the dogsitting industry to have 2 dogs not known (by the petsitter) to be aggressive to other dogs to be allowed to be near each other - then he will not be able to prove you were negligent. Your dogsitting always entails your dog's presence, and no constant kenneling of a dog if it is not described to be violent. He did not divulge his dogs violence, so you could not have known about it, particularly when he'd been nonviolent the other time. I see no negligence here that he can prove on your part. He, on the other hand, could be seen as negligent because he knew or should have known that he SHOULD have advised you of his dog's history of attack/biting.
I already paid 322 dollars for my dogs vet bill and still have to go for a recall to make sure my dog has no internal injuries from when my dog was slammed on the by his dog. Have you considered making a demand on him for this cost? If nothing else, it may make him think twice about suing you - because if he did, you would presumably counterclaim for your damages, in addition to denying liablity for his damages. He would likely not only lose his case, but have to opay you $322 plus.
his 200 dollar pet sitting fee doesn't even cover the vet bill. before i continue communicating with him i would like to get legal council. Legal counsel may cost you more than your vet bills, but certainly read up on VA's dog liability laws. See here specifically: DANGEROUS URL REMOVED?000+cod+3.2-6540
You will also want to see if your munipality or county has any local dog laws.
Now, remember, he may be trying to go after you for you dog bite responsibilties, but since his dog attacked your dog, AND his dog has a history, it would appear that he would have some difficulty proving you were negligent in the handling of your dog, thereby causing the bite. However, he can also try to go under the theory of breach of contract - that you were negligent in your bailment or dogsitting duties. However, again, you will point out that based on what he hired you for and what information he provided (and as importantly, what he knowingly concealed, which was very dangerous), you did your job perfectly - it is he who caused the fight, in reality.