Today on Judge Judy (I hate that show), the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages due to a dog bite.
Briefly, the plaintiff came to the defandant’s house to pick up a cake she had ordered. They had arranged for her to arrive between 4pm and 6pm, iirc. The defendant had a dog which she knew to be aggressive, but had never bitten anyone. Because of the dog’s nature, she always put the dog on her back porch when a client was coming over.
Well, the plaintiff, who also knew of the dog’s nature, decided th arrive at 3:30 pm instead of the agreed upon time and didn’t notify the defendant of this change of mind. When she arrived, the dog was chained on the front porch. She approached anyway, and was bitten by the dog.
Judge Judy ruled totally in favor of the plaintiff, saying the defandant should have put the dog out back because she knew the client was coming, regardless of the time she actually came.
I disagree. The plaintiff broke the arrangement both by arriving early, and by approaching the dog without the defandant being present. Didn’t she have a duty to advise the defandant of her change of plans? When she saw the dog, which she knew to be very protective, shouldn’t she have stayed outside the gate and somehow notified the defendant to control the dog before she she entered it’s domain?
From a legal perspective, when a judge sits as a trier of fact in a bench trial, it’s for that judge to decide questions of fact as well as reach conclusions of law.
All of the “Shouldn’t she …?” questions you raise are questions of reasonableness, which generally are questions of fact. There’s no issue of law here, for which someone else can say, “No reasonable trier of fact could have found the facts she did .”
Beyond that, the issue is opinion, not law.
So the blindfolded woman is there for drama.
Like the other woman, with the torch.
If I were a lawyer, I’d cry myself to sleep every night.
Anyone that has a dog that will bite and it is left in a location where it could potentially bite someone deserves to be found guilty. What if it was a child or other unexpected person? The irresponsible pet owner got what she deserved.
I don’t know if the “attractive nuisance” doctrine applies if an adult is harmed, but it certainly should if a child came up to pet the dog.
It’s really a matter of negligence. A reasonable person knows that a delivery person might come a little early or late.
Or what if a friend/mailman/neighbor had come over for an unspecified reason? People approach houses. You can’t operate under the assumption that no one should ever approach your house when your aggressive dog is left on the porch.
“What if” this and “what if” that. The fact is that this was not an unsuspecting delivery person or mail carrier or child. It was a person who knew the risk and took action anyway.
As a knee jerk thought… maybe the doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of the risk should apply to absolve the defendant.
While all of that is true, none of it really applies in this case because there is no bench trial here.
Keep in mind that while Judge Judy was once a judge, she is no longer, but is instead an independent arbiter. She wears a judges robe for the cameras. Before the “trial” starts the two parties sign an agreement to be be bound by whatever decision Judy makes. If one of the parties doesn’t like her decision, and doesn’t pay the damages (or whatever), they will not be guilty of contempt of court, but rather breach of contract. Which is a civil, not a criminal, matter. And by the same token, neither party can appeal from a JJ decision: there’s no higher court because there was no court to begin with.
IOW, JJ can say whatever the hell she wants, and doesn’t have to be bound by legal precedent, statute, or even common sense.
Since this is not a strict “legal question,” let’s try IMHO, where opinions can be offered without regard to facts, although facts are quite often offered in IMHO.
samclem GQ moderator
Well, imagine how your clients would be sleeping! 
It has been known to happen, unfortunately. 
But your dog shouldn’t be biting anyone. It’s not an acceptable risk to leave your dog out unattended if it’s that aggressive.
The plaintiff was a client, not a delivery person. And she knew the dog’s nature and arrived very (30 minutes) early. The woman made no effort to advise the owner that she was there. Early.
And the dog was chained, or tied, on the porch inside a gated fence, and had no history of biting.
First of all, they are both a little bit at fault here. The woman with the dog for leaving the dog where it could feasibly get to someone and bite them and the client for approaching the dog even though she knew it to be aggressive.
Second of all, this never should have become an issue Judge Judy had to settle in the first place. If the dog bite was bad enough to require serious medical attention (more than $1000, generally speaking, depending on her deductable) the dog owner’s homeowner’s/renter’s insurance would have covered the cost. If it was about more than just the cost of dealing with the dog bite the client should have picked up their stuff and never done business with the dog owner again, and the dog owner should have paid for any medical attention, given the client their stuff and learned that the dog should be kept inside or in the back yard after that.
Now if she has no insurance JJ is a good way to go. IIRC when you go on a court tv kind of show not only are you making an ass out of yourself on TV but if you lose the show pays the cost for you.
IANAL but I am an insurance agent, FWIW.
While the law varies widely in different jurisdictions, the basic concept is; your animal, your responsibility, pretty hard to get around that. I think JJ is a putz, but that’s what attracts the audience. Bottom line, it’s entertainment.
So what if the dog were in the back yard, or in the (unlocked) house, and the woman went there?
If the victim were commiting a crime it may negate liability, but you can’t just say “My dog bites.” and expect that to shield you, even if someone ignores the warning.
This was the first time the dog had bitten anyone.
IRL, the plaintiff at least shared the blame for her injury.
However insurance companies are getting touchy on the issue of dog bites. Some will drop you if the dog remains in the household after a bite, and some are excluding coverage if certain breeds (Akitas, Rotts, Shepards, PitBulls, Chows) are owned.
Cite: my day to day experience as well as: