I had a vicious dog (it actually belonged to my ex) and I’m very lucky nothing serious happened.
THe dog bit the mailman, the maintenance guy from the complex, and (get this) hung on the one-armed neighbor’s “stump” until I pulled him off. The dog was very unpredictable. I have a feeling another neighbor “took him out” after biting the cat.
It is a huge responsibility, and not one I would ever take on again.
Actually in some statesor counties having a beware of dog sign may hurt you in cases like this
The justification being that if your dog is dangerous enough to need a sign posted theres something wrong to begin with
Hi WV_Woman
I take your point, but “there are circumstances in which you can kill someone who is trespassing on your property” is not the same as “killing trespassers is OK”.
More generally, I take *Zev’s point about the distinction between civil and criminal liability. So far as criminal liability goes, the usual issues about causation, intention and so on would arise. If my dog is properly secured but, unknown to me, Zev releases it, I don’t see that I can be criminally liable for what the dog does next, any more than I am guilty of murder if Zev takes my knife and stabs someone.
If I keep a dog on my property, and the dog injures or kills someone on my property, am I guilty of a crime? Probably this should be viewed in the same light as a case involved in keeping another dangerous substance or thing. My reason for keeping a dog is irrelevant, just as my reason for keeping (say) a container of gasoline is irrelevant. If I am negligent in my management of the gasoline or the dog and someone dies as a result, I’m guilty of causing death by negligence, however that may be characterised in the local law.
My point is that all dogs are capable of attacking a stranger who encroaches on “their” territory or who they see as posing threat for any reason. Anyone who manages a dog without regard to this fact is, obviously, negligent. The stranger may or may not be a trespasser – he could be a firefighter rescuing someone from the house, he could be the mailman. If he is a trespasser, the circumstances might or might not justify the use of force against him. It doesn’t follow that, because he is a trespasser, I cannot be guilty of a crime if I kill him, or if I negligently fail to control my dog, who kills him as a result.
I do know one answer. The woman was not dog sitting, it was her dog.
Other than that, thewiz, I dunno.
But aren’t there (or shouldn’t there be) some sort of legal guidelines about what you, a pet owner, may or may not be liable for if your pet kills someone? Why does it seem there no hard and fast rules about owning aggressive, vicious, dangerous animals?
Eh. I just don’t buy the whole deal and that CA judge sure screwed up. If you own a dog and it goes berzerk (without provocation or threat) because it’s just being a dorky overly protective dog, then you’re still just the owner and it’s still your responsiblity. Oh sure, there are unusual circumstances where maybe someone else lets the dog out and it does damage, or whatever, but that’s a special case and those circumstances should of course be taken into account.
I’m talking about people who own obviously dangerous, clearly aggressive animals (like the wolf-dog) and keep them in tiny, unacceptable accommodations (like the stupid CA lawyers did), and then act all surprised when the creature goes apeshit and eats the neighbor.
There are towns that are starting to ban pit bulls and other aggressive dogs (or at least limit the number you can own). So why are there no laws about keeping 120-pound attack dogs in an 800-square foot apartment? I mean, how many times does a dog have to bite or snap at people before it is considered dangerous and you’re required to take responsibility for the danger your pet poses? Reportedlyl, the lawyers’ dogs in CA had a long track record of biting and snapping at people… why doesn’t the law seem to carea bout that? Seems pretty clear to me that those dogs were timebombs just ticking away.
Its okay with me, too. (and the state i live in, and Texas as far as i know!) Keep the hell out of my yard/space/home, and we won’t have a problem.
other than that, i agree with what Joe Cool said.
Well, now that i read the rest of the thread, i guess my previous post is redundant and unnessesary. (kinda like most all my posts 
)
my answer to your question is that except for possibly the blind, * no one needs any type of dog!* That being said, as the owner of many different dogs with 1/2 - 1/4 wolf, they are beautiful and friendly and make excellant companions. In other words, the same qualities/reasons apply for owning any dog. They are no more inherently agressive than a beagle or terrior. (terrior, sounds like terrorist, and i’m sure some owners would agree they are not too dissimilar! )
ps- my beautiful, well mannered husky/wolf dog, GD, died late last night. 
[Lil hijack]
May vary somewhat by state but here in CA, blowing someone away on your porch, who is making no effort to force entry to your home will land you in jail.
IIRC you are allowed to use the minimum amount of force needed to remove the tresspasser. Not that I’m going to try it but just because I am persistent in begging for spare change cause my car ran out of gas dosen’t rate killing people. Of course faced with lethal force will anyone who isn’t dangerous will most likely retreat or comply with orders.
If they are just standing in the front yard looking stupid maybe you should let the police deal with him, if he tries to force entry, open fire.
[end lil hijack]
I am so sick of these “Let’s protect everyone from the dangers of life” threads.
When I was about 11, I got mauled by a dog. I wouldn’t let my parents sue cuz I didn’t want the dog to be put to sleep.
I think in this woman’s case, then yeah she has some responsibility, but not all dog attack cases are alike.
Aren’t people aware that getting rid of the dog means putting it to sleep in 90% of these cases?
Erek
The dogs in question were not bull mastiffs, nor were they bull terriers. They were hybrid Canary Island Dogs/something else, that were being trained to be vicious.
Carry on.
If you keep the dog in your backyard then how are you negligent when it attacks a trespasser? You’ve taken reasonable precautions to ensure that the dog isn’t a danger to the general population. How much blame can we put on the person who trespassed?
If a kid pulls my dog’s ear really hard and my dog bites am I guilty of assault?
Marc
Even if said trespasser is a 3 year old who was going after his lost ball?
If you have a big dog it should be in a fenced location. This fenced location should keep a three year old kid wandering in for his lost ball.
It’s not a question of taking reasonable precautions to ensure that the dog isn’t a danger to the general population, it’s a question of taking reasonable (meaning “likely to be effective”) precautions to ensure that the dog isn’t a danger, full stop.
People could be in your back yard without being trespassers. A firefighter, for example, who enters to extinguish a blaze in your house when you are not there. There is a presumption that he has your implied permission to enter your property to put out a fire. (Indeed, in some jurisdictions, he has a right to enter your property to put out a fire, even against your will.)
You might argue that the risk that there will be a fire in your house and a firefighter will enter your back yard and your dog will attack him is, all things considered, a pretty small risk. Indeed it is, and on that basis you might be happy to bear it as a dog-owner. But you can’t insist that the firefighter should bear it.
Tho IAAL, this is not my specialty, so I will flaunt my ignorance.
Also, these are my personal views rather than any description of laws or liabilities.
Each case certainly needs to be examined on its own merits. In a case where the dog is in a fenced, marked yard, I think some degree of contributory negligence should be relevant for all but the absolutely youngest victims (maybe 3 or under? Or maybe 5 or so when they should be able to read.) What responsibility does a parent have to teach their kids to respect other peoples’ property? Or to teach a kid to avoid dangerous situations? Don’t play in the street. Don’t go into a yard where you know there is a dog. I understand that increasing levels of responsibility kick in as age increases, tho reflect a child’s maturing ability to reason. IMO, “Dogs might bite” is just about as basic as “Don’t touch the stove, it might be hot.” Yeah, it sucks that accidents happen and kids burn themselves and try to pet “the pretty doggie.” But that doesn’t mean someone should necessarily be held liable.
Of course, I believe the degree of injury and the individual history of the dog should come into play.
A case close to me involves my neighbors. Their youngest kid was bitten by dogs 3 times before she was maybe 5 years old. Each time the kid had gone into a fenced yard she was not invited into. Each time the dog’s owners were liable for expenses, and one dog was put to sleep. I am terrified that this little creep will come into my yard, do something to my sweet dog, and get bitten, with unpleasant consequences. Now that she is about 8, I hope she is more respectful of people’s property and the potential implications of her actions. But we were very clear with both her and her folks that she was under no conditions welcome in our yard uninvited. They recently got a puppy. I believe it is just a matter of time …
The discussion of “Who needs xyz breed of dog?” reminds me of lots of the gun debate. “Who needs xyz weapon?” Whether you view it as fortunate or unfortunate, this seems to be a result of our desire for relatively unfettered freedom of individual choice.
Finally, I agree that the distinction between crim and civ liability is important. Just about anyone can sue you for just about anything that is arguably related to something you own or control. As you go through your life, you make your choices as to how you style your life. Those choices have potential implications. If you install a pool, whatever precautions you take, it is more likely that a kid will drown in your backyard than if you do not have a pool.
Same with dogs. If you have a 200# dog that you are not physically able to control, it is more likely that your dog will cause serious injury than if you have a chihuahua.
Of course those are extremes. But if you choose to own a breed that has a bad rep - whether you think that rep is deserved or not. Or if you choose to keep a dog that has shown aggressive tendencies in the past. Or if you let the dog roam unleashed. Or leave it in the yard unattended when you know there are kids around. You made those choices and must live with the potential implications.
Nobody forced you to come into my yard, either. And since you jumped my fence, knowing there is a dog there who will guard his territory, then whatever happens to you is your own damn fault, and I have no pity for you and your injuries.
The moral is stay the hell out of my yard, and you don’t have to worry about what my dog might do.
In this particular case, I think it’s a terrible and unfortunate thing, but the most I can see reasonably charging the dog owner with is negligence, for not using a strong enough chain to restrain the dog. At the same time, I put exactly the same amount of blame (if not a little bit more) on the child’s parents, for not teaching the boy not to go in other people’s yards (out of respect), and to STAY AWAY FROM YARDS WITH DOGS (for safety).
I see this as a consequence of the “let daddy government take care of us and protect us” attitude that is prevalent. People rely on laws to keep the dog safely boxed up away from them, instead of common sense that says “don’t go in a yard with a dog, so he won’t get bitten, and for God’s sake, teach your children to stay away from strange animals!”
Personally, I don’t care what the law says. I won’t go into your house out of respect for your home. I won’t go into a yard with a dog out of respect for your home, but also out of respect for my safety. I really don’t give a damn if you have crossbows, bombs, tiger pits, dogs, anything in your yard. NOBODY has any business going into it without your permission. And I will make damn sure that any kids under my charge have it perfectly clearly understood not to go into other people’s yards without EXPLICIT permission, and that they are not to go near somebody else’s dog EVER, unless the adult owner of the dog is present and actively supervising.
And yes, I think under some circumstances it is perfectly ok to kill trespassers. For example: If I were to find somebody in my apartment who didn’t belong here, I would shoot them dead, without hesitation. If you are in my home without my permission, I assume you mean to cause me or my family harm, and will cause the greater harm first. The only exception to this is police, who have properly identified themselves and presented a warrant.
So, trespassing on others’ property is ok by you.
You’re not the only one who’s glad you don’t live next door. :rolleyes:
Again, if you don’t want to get bitten by somebody’s dog, drown in their pool, break your neck on their skate ramp, etc, then stay out of their yard!
UDS said:
If the fire fighter is on the scene and believes he cannot safely approach your house because of a perceived danger to his safety, I believe he can (and should) watch your house burn to the ground while protecting surrounding properties. If a police officer is on the scene (which should be the case in virtually every emergency I’m aware of), the police officer can (and should) shoot the dog to allow safe access for fire, police, EMT, or whoever else needs access to the property.
I have to say that I am really agreeing with the sentiment that a lot of folks here are presenting that is advocating a greater level of personal responsibility. So far, we do not know why a little child was unsupervised long enough for this to even be possible (especially if this dog was the subject of neighbors complaining and worrying).
Can the dog owner sue the parents of the child for the mental anguish of having to get rid of the beloved family pet because the negligent parents couldn’t keep an eye on their spawn?
This is not to say that a tragedy has not happened. A child is dead, and that is a horrible thing. That said (and I would prefer a link from the OP to this story so that I can get specific facts) as a generalized theme, we are far to quick to seek Old Testament style justice, and far to slow to take a searching look at how our own foolishness and irresponsibility could have contributed to this problem.
Unsupervised? He was outside playing in his grandmother’s yard!!!
Are people going to have to start putting big white lines on their property so if a kid gets anywhere NEAR a dog’s “territory” and gets killed, it’s the kid’s own damn fault?
Incidentally, the dog was destroyed before the little boy died (he apparently lived a few hours after the attack).