Vicious dog attack

[Hawkeye10]

The reason is because the animal in this case is "property" it is not a wild animal wandering free. It is the person's property and not a free independent thinking rational being (aka: human) which would be held accountable for it's own actions.

When a person's property, and their negligence with that property, causes harm or death to another, the OWNER is responsible. Otherwise don't own a dog--especially a breed capable of easily killing another human being.

Calling it property, sticking that post it label on it, does not change anything. That does not alter the fact that justice demands foresight and control.

What is next from you, if lightning strikes my property and starts a 100 acer fire everyone sues me because MY PRoPERTY started it?

I say no.

 

[matchlight]

Just an FYI here is the Arizona law:

Format Document

That sounds pretty much like a strict liability standard. That standard usually applies only when the animal being kept is obviously dangerous under any conditions, e.g. an African lion

 

[Infinite Chaos]

When you claim what the law is "here," you don't say where "here" is. A state's law on animal bites is not whatever makes sense to you, and the fact you see no benefit in someone else's law changes that law not one iota. What I stated is a fairly accurate summary of the legal rule in most states. Whether the incident occurs on the animal owner's property may be a factor in a case, but it is not part of the majority legal rule.

If the first attack on a person by a dog were fatal, the owner's liability would depend on the facts. Obviously the owner of a very large dog of a breed known to be aggressive would have a much harder time in court than would someone whose fairly small, ordinarily friendly dog bit a hemophiliac only after the person had viciously kicked it.

My response was to the one free bite argument. Obviously circumstances on the ground will be different and decisions will not be pure black and white but as the post above yours shows - "one free bite" is not something most places or countries would allow.

 

[Donny Brook]

Calling it property, sticking that post it label on it, does not change anything. That does not alter the fact that justice demands foresight and control.

What is next from you, if lightning strikes my property and starts a 100 acer fire everyone sues me because MY PRoPERTY started it?

I say no.

Your reply is false logic. Do you have control over lightning? Answer is no, it is what a insurance company calls "an act of God".

The owner of a dog has control over his property. Keeping it fenced, leashed and away from other people or property is the responsibility of the owner. There is no rational defense to the idea that a animal's natural instincts preclude a owner of that animal from responsibility for damages done by that animal. If you own a zoo and are permitted to keep apex predators on your property; you will be held liable for any negligence in the safe keeping of those animals. YOU ASSUME responsibility when you make them your property. If the animal is a wild animal on your property that you don't own (like lightning is "wild") then you would not be liable.

 

[Donny Brook]

Just an FYI here is the Arizona law:

Format Document

That sounds pretty much like a strict liability standard. That standard usually applies only when the animal being kept is obviously dangerous under any conditions, e.g. an African lion

Dog bite liability varies depending on the jurisdiction. In some states all that has to occur to make a dog bite a strict liability case is that the person was bitten while they were in a public place or legally in a private place (i.e., not trespassing), and were not provoking the dog. In some jurisdictions a 'dog' does not need to be obviously dangerous, and there is no defense for an owner without proving that the person bitten was trespassing on their property.

 

[matchlight]

as the post above yours shows - "one free bite" is not something most places or countries would allow.

I don't know about most countries. The majority legal rule in the U.S., as I stated it, is accurate. The fact one state's law departs from that rule is not evidence the majority of states do not follow it. It is often called the "one free bite" rule.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I don't know about most countries. The majority legal rule in the U.S., as I stated it, is accurate. The fact one state's law departs from that rule is not evidence the majority of states do not follow it. It is often called the "one free bite" rule.

I'm not American so I don't know if this is a genuine company or not.

Texas is one of the few remaining states that follow some form of the old “one free bite rule” in a dog bite or other animal attack case. Link.

but what it states is that few US States apply that ruling and even then it is watered down.

The one free bite rule is watered down by creating liability for people who know the animal has a dangerous propensity to bite a person. This means a bite does not have to occur. An injured person could show that the dog had tried to bite somebody before, had tried to jump a fence to attack a passerby, tried to attack people while on a leash and other forms of hostility towards other people in the presence of the owner

So I'll let your country's legal experts direct me on this.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Your reply is false logic. Do you have control over lightning? Answer is no, it is what a insurance company calls "an act of God".

The owner of a dog has control over his property. Keeping it fenced, leashed and away from other people or property is the responsibility of the owner. There is no rational defense to the idea that a animal's natural instincts preclude a owner of that animal from responsibility for damages done by that animal. If you own a zoo and are permitted to keep apex predators on your property; you will be held liable for any negligence in the safe keeping of those animals. YOU ASSUME responsibility when you make them your property. If the animal is a wild animal on your property that you don't own (like lightning is "wild") then you would not be liable.

Too bad Donny got banned upon entry, arguing with him likely would have been fun.

 

[faithful_servant]

I'm against breed-specific laws but stories like this just piss me off.

‘Dog hunt’ underway in Surrey for pit bull that attacked woman | Vancouver Sun

Basically, a 60-something woman was passing by the Macs store when a pit bull leaped on her, hauled her down, mauled her arm so bad that a witness saw the bone ends poking through. The dog's owner comes out of the store, grabs the dog and hustles off.
Now, obviously the dog needs to be put down (and it will be found). But I'm starting to think that the owner needs to be charged as if he committed the assault. Aggravated assault causing bodily harm or whatever the legality is. Major jail time. Make an example of the lowlife bastard.

What exactly is a "pit bull"???

 

[faithful_servant]

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd?

Often enough to be a problem,.

2014 dog bite fatality statistics

42 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2014. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 700 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 64% (27) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.2

Together, pit bulls (27) and rottweilers (4), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 74% of the total recorded deaths in 2014. This same combination also accounted for 74% of all fatal attacks during the 10-year period of 2005 to 2014.

The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 10-year period. From 2005 to 2014, pit bulls killed 203 Americans, about one citizen every 18 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 38, about one citizen every 96 days.

In the year of 2014, the combination of pit bulls (27), rottweilers (4) and mastiff-type guard dogs and war dogs (4) -- the types used to create "baiting" bull breeds and fighting breeds -- accounted for 83% (35) of all dog bite-related fatalities.

2014 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities - Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org


Dog Bite Fatality Chart
-
2005 to 2014
During this 10 - year period, 326 Americans suffered death due to dog bite injury.

2014 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities - Dog Bite Statistics - DogsBite.org

So is it the breed or the people attracted to the breed that are the problem??

 

[radcen]

Too bad Donny got banned upon entry, arguing with him likely would have been fun.

That is too bad. I liked the screen name.

 

[radcen]

So is it the breed or the people attracted to the breed that are the problem??

Both. People attracted to the breed for insidious reasons made the breed what it is.

It may not be "the dog's fault", but the dog is still what it is.

 

[Fledermaus]

So is it the breed or the people attracted to the breed that are the problem??

Yes and yes....

Not all the Pits were owned by wannabe gangsters (common in SoCal) or other ne'er–do–wells. Many were family pets that suddenly turned.

 

[Fledermaus]

Calling it property, sticking that post it label on it, does not change anything. That does not alter the fact that justice demands foresight and control.

What is next from you, if lightning strikes my property and starts a 100 acer fire everyone sues me because MY PRoPERTY started it?

I say no.

Strawman much?

Lightning = "Act of God/Nature"

Someone getting maimed or killed because your are NEGLIGENT = CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

 

[Fledermaus]

What exactly is a "pit bull"???

Pit bull is the common name for a type of dog. Formal breeds often considered in North America to be of the pit bull type include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.[1] The American Bulldog and the Bull Terrier (standard and miniature) are also sometimes included.

FWIW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

The term "Pit bull" has become the "assault weapon" of the dog world.

 

[joG]

Strawman much?

Lightning = "Act of God/Nature"

Someone getting maimed or killed because your are NEGLIGENT = CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

That sounds like a good concept.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm against breed-specific laws but stories like this just piss me off.

‘Dog hunt’ underway in Surrey for pit bull that attacked woman | Vancouver Sun

Basically, a 60-something woman was passing by the Macs store when a pit bull leaped on her, hauled her down, mauled her arm so bad that a witness saw the bone ends poking through. The dog's owner comes out of the store, grabs the dog and hustles off.
Now, obviously the dog needs to be put down (and it will be found). But I'm starting to think that the owner needs to be charged as if he committed the assault. Aggravated assault causing bodily harm or whatever the legality is. Major jail time. Make an example of the lowlife bastard.

Given the statistics relating to that breed of dog, the only real solution is to eradicate the breed entirely. That will reduce the number of injuries/fatalities caused by all dogs by over 60%.

Of course, it's unlikely the breed will be eradicated so I agree that a severe example should be made of the owner.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Strawman much?

Lightning = "Act of God/Nature"

Someone getting maimed or killed because your are NEGLIGENT = CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.

I already answered this, if I am negligent for anything the dog I own does outside of supermax confinement then the damn things are to dangerous to be allowed to around. I keep my dog on a leash as the law says I must but there is no way to keep my dog outside of biting range of all humans if my dog is to be treated normally, and I may have no warning of what the dog will do, all of this happening in the blink of an eye. We must be given one free bite because we can not get onto the mind of our dog, we are not and have never been a dog, and in our society dogs and people interact in close quarters.

Negligence is earned not by a dog attacking, but by not putting down or supermaxing a dog that has already attacked.

One free bite.

 

[Fledermaus]

I already answered this, if I am negligent for any the dog I own does outside of supermax confinement then the damn things are to dangerous to be allowed to around. I keep my dog on a leash as the law says I must but there is no way to keep my dog outside of biting range of all humans, and I may have no warning of what the dog will do, all of this happening in the blink of an eye. We must be given one free bite because we can not get onto the mind of our dog, we are not and have never been a dog, and in our society dogs and people interact in close quarters.

Negligence is earned not by a dog attacking, but by not putting down or supermaxing a dog that has already attacked.

On free bite.

supermax confinement = Strawman. With a dose of hyperbole.

we are not and have never been a dog = Strawman.

If you can't control your dog GET RID OF IT.

It really is not a hard concept.

 

[Fledermaus]

I already answered this, if I am negligent for anything the dog I own does outside of supermax confinement then the damn things are to dangerous to be allowed to around. I keep my dog on a leash as the law says I must but there is no way to keep my dog outside of biting range of all humans if my dog is to be treated normally, and I may have no warning of what the dog will do, all of this happening in the blink of an eye. We must be given one free bite because we can not get onto the mind of our dog, we are not and have never been a dog, and in our society dogs and people interact in close quarters.

Negligence is earned not by a dog attacking, but by not putting down or supermaxing a dog that has already attacked.

One free bite.

One free bite:

2014 Dog Bite Fatality: 4-Year Old Girl Killed by Family Pit Bulls in Bloomington - DogsBite.org

2014 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Killed by Her Grandson's Three Rottweilers in Corona - DogsBite.org

Free bite = Ignorant concept

 

[faithful_servant]

Yes and yes....

Not all the Pits were owned by wannabe gangsters (common in SoCal) or other ne'er–do–wells. Many were family pets that suddenly turned.

I have a neighbor who is a "dog person" (she manages a kennel, been a vets assistant, etc.) and her take is that any breed can turn and the breeds that people think of as "pit bulls" are no more likely to turn than any other breed. The breeds she's had problems with "turning" are Cocker Spaniels (they can be really mean little things), German/Austrian Shepherds (single person focus that can cause them to defend that one person they are bonded to against a mistaken threat), St. Bernards (in her opinion, they are almost the worst there is) and Dalmatians (the worst there is).

 

[Mycroft]

I have a neighbor who is a "dog person" (she manages a kennel, been a vets assistant, etc.) and her take is that any breed can turn and the breeds that people think of as "pit bulls" are no more likely to turn than any other breed. The breeds she's had problems with "turning" are Cocker Spaniels (they can be really mean little things), German/Austrian Shepherds (single person focus that can cause them to defend that one person they are bonded to against a mistaken threat), St. Bernards (in her opinion, they are almost the worst there is) and Dalmatians (the worst there is).

The statistics prove she is wrong.

Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2014 - By Merritt Clifton - DogsBite.org

 

[bluesmoke]

In order, Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, and Jack Russell Terriers are the dog breeds most likely to bite you. The difference is, a bite from a Pitty or Bully will be much more severe. Nonetheless, an attack is an attack. It isn't just the damage, it's the attack itself that leads to a dog being put down. Legally, a Pitt Bull should no more be put down than a Chihuahua in the case of an attack. Any case against the owner is a trickier question. I've had a Doxen, a Parson Jack, and a Pitt as pets. What do you think?

 

[Mycroft]

In order, Dachshunds, Chihuahuas, and Jack Russell Terriers are the dog breeds most likely to bite you.

I'd like to see your data for this statement.

Here is what I've seen from a 1994 study from Denver County. Note: Pit Bulls were not part of this study because they have been banned in Denver County since 1989.

Dogs predominantly of chihuahua, golden retriever, labrador retriever, poodle, Scottish terrier, and Shetland sheepdog breeds were more common among nonbiting than among the biting dogs.

None of the cases and only one control dog was a pit bull terrier.

Dogs predominantly of German shepherd, chow chow, collie and akita breeds were substantially more frequent among biting than nonbiting dogs. The total numbers of dogs mainly collie (n=9) and akita (n=5) breeds were small compared to the total numbers of German shepherd (n=47) and chow chows (n=40).

Which Dogs Bite? A Case-Control Study of Risk Factors - DogsBite.org

 

[Fledermaus]

I have a neighbor who is a "dog person" (she manages a kennel, been a vets assistant, etc.) and her take is that any breed can turn and the breeds that people think of as "pit bulls" are no more likely to turn than any other breed. The breeds she's had problems with "turning" are Cocker Spaniels (they can be really mean little things), German/Austrian Shepherds (single person focus that can cause them to defend that one person they are bonded to against a mistaken threat), St. Bernards (in her opinion, they are almost the worst there is) and Dalmatians (the worst there is).

I have had dalmatians. One was a psychotic (Raised in an apartment and went crazy) bitch that would back bite anyone but family. She was the one we had to take special precautions with. There other two were runt rescues. They were never a problem.

I agree other breeds may be more likely to turn. The problem is thet are less likely to kill or seriously maim than the breeds noted in my links.