I might be getting sued

[jendf]

Jen, I understand about being afraid of things .... what I don't understand is a complete overreaction due to the fear.  The person involved should realize, in my very humble opinion, that it is their problem and not everyone else's.  How could anyone know you have a completely irrational fear of dogs?

I for one am terrified of spiders.  Yeah, I catch a lot of grief over it.  I'm 6' 1" and weigh 250#'s but I'm terrified of spiders.  Even little ones!     I can't and don't expect everyone else to know that.

I have watched dogs go up to someone who are terrified of them and I have seen those people have a horrible reaction to it.  Including lying about the incident.  When a dog is walking up to someone wagging their tail they are not a threat.  But I have seen this happen and I have seen the person involved come into my office and say "Where is the law ..... that dog tried to BITE me" .... Now I watched the whole incident and that dog only wanted its head scratched.

All I'm saying is the person involved needs to evaluate the situation before making the judgment and causing a stir.  It isn't only the dog owners responsibility.  Sometimes things just happen.

KC

Yeah, that's the attitude I was talking about. "You don't like my dog running up to you? What the hell is wrong with you?"

The dog owner should apologize. The neighbor should accept it and move on. No lawsuit is necessary but the neighbor shouldn't have to be blamed for minding his own damn business and reacting appropriately when an animal he knows nothing about rushes up to him.

Yeah, ok.  Whatever.  That's what I meant and if that is all you got out of that post ....   

KC

You said the situation wasn't only the dog owner's responsibility. What did you want the neighbor to do?

[Chris_]

If you have a leash law and your dog wasn't leashed, you are toast. You are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil sanctions, which you will certainly lose.

It doesn't matter if your dog slipped the leash -- there is absolute liability and you are presumed negligent.

I recommend you pay for medical bills and maybe throw in some additional money.  And pray this guy doesn't press it.

To tell you the truth, if a dog bit me, even if it was a small bite, I would sue the owner for everything possible and get the dog muzzled if the first time and destroyed if the second time.  And Pit Bulls these days don't get the first strike, with good reason.

Sorry, your negligence doesn't rate much sympathy.  Nor will it in court.

Why?  Seriously ..... Why?  things happen, it is as simple as that.  I have been hit from the rear by a lady who simply wasn't paying attention.  Her car was damaged, my pickup wasn't.  I wasn't hurt and neither was my wife (girlfriend at the time).  What would the purpose of suing accomplish?  No harm, no foul.

It is simple stuff like that that clogs our judicial system.  Why not just say, "Hey it didn't hurt me" and move on?  There is no reason to make something big out of this or anything else that truly didn't hurt you.

KC

And you get to decide what "truly hurts?" A small bite hurts. A dog attacking you is freaking scary.  Not paying attention when you are driving is both criminal and just wrong.  When you decide to get into a multi-ton machine capable of complete devastation, you had damn well better be paying attention.  When you take an animal capable of doing damage to someone out, you had better make sure you pay attention to all the details, first and foremost that the leash and collar are secure.

You have already seen on this thread what a "small dog bite" has done to ruin the life of someone.  What if it was a 2 year old baby's eye that your dog "took just a small bite" from?  Does the level of damage somehow mitigate your responsibility?  What if the lady not paying attention sort of missed a stop sign and took out a van full of pre-schoolers?  I mean, it isn't like she MEANT to do any damage.

Responsibility. It is what adults take.

[Texacon]

Jen, I understand about being afraid of things .... what I don't understand is a complete overreaction due to the fear.  The person involved should realize, in my very humble opinion, that it is their problem and not everyone else's.  How could anyone know you have a completely irrational fear of dogs?

I for one am terrified of spiders.  Yeah, I catch a lot of grief over it.  I'm 6' 1" and weigh 250#'s but I'm terrified of spiders.  Even little ones!     I can't and don't expect everyone else to know that.

I have watched dogs go up to someone who are terrified of them and I have seen those people have a horrible reaction to it.  Including lying about the incident.  When a dog is walking up to someone wagging their tail they are not a threat.  But I have seen this happen and I have seen the person involved come into my office and say "Where is the law ..... that dog tried to BITE me" .... Now I watched the whole incident and that dog only wanted its head scratched.

All I'm saying is the person involved needs to evaluate the situation before making the judgment and causing a stir.  It isn't only the dog owners responsibility.  Sometimes things just happen.

KC

Yeah, that's the attitude I was talking about. "You don't like my dog running up to you? What the hell is wrong with you?"

The dog owner should apologize. The neighbor should accept it and move on. No lawsuit is necessary but the neighbor shouldn't have to be blamed for minding his own damn business and reacting appropriately when an animal he knows nothing about rushes up to him.

Yeah, ok.  Whatever.  That's what I meant and if that is all you got out of that post ....   

KC

You said the situation wasn't only the dog owner's responsibility. What did you want the neighbor to do?

Jen, I have no problem with folks being upset by something like that.  Honestly.  I just don't think an overreaction is justified.  In that instance I think a sincere apology by the owner is absolutely owed but for someone to say (as freedumb said) they are going to sue is overboard in my opinion.  IF there were honest injury then fine let's go to court but if it is a scratch AND the owner tells you (and can prove if necessary) the animal has had its shots then it is a "Sorry"/"Don't worry about it" kind of deal.  I think people take things too far in our society.  Someone says "Black Hole" and someone else yells "LAWSUIT" because it hurt someone's itty bitty feelers.  We need some context.  We need somewhere to draw a line. 

Bottom line folks need to remember that accidents happen.  That is why they are called accidents and not on purposes.  We all experience them and forgiveness is divine.  We all need to remember what comes around goes around.  It could and does happen to all of us at some point.

KC   

[Texacon]

If you have a leash law and your dog wasn't leashed, you are toast. You are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil sanctions, which you will certainly lose.

It doesn't matter if your dog slipped the leash -- there is absolute liability and you are presumed negligent.

I recommend you pay for medical bills and maybe throw in some additional money.  And pray this guy doesn't press it.

To tell you the truth, if a dog bit me, even if it was a small bite, I would sue the owner for everything possible and get the dog muzzled if the first time and destroyed if the second time.  And Pit Bulls these days don't get the first strike, with good reason.

Sorry, your negligence doesn't rate much sympathy.  Nor will it in court.

Why?  Seriously ..... Why?  things happen, it is as simple as that.  I have been hit from the rear by a lady who simply wasn't paying attention.  Her car was damaged, my pickup wasn't.  I wasn't hurt and neither was my wife (girlfriend at the time).  What would the purpose of suing accomplish?  No harm, no foul.

It is simple stuff like that that clogs our judicial system.  Why not just say, "Hey it didn't hurt me" and move on?  There is no reason to make something big out of this or anything else that truly didn't hurt you.

KC

And you get to decide what "truly hurts?" A small bite hurts. A dog attacking you is freaking scary.  Not paying attention when you are driving is both criminal and just wrong.  When you decide to get into a multi-ton machine capable of complete devastation, you had damn well better be paying attention.  When you take an animal capable of doing damage to someone out, you had better make sure you pay attention to all the details, first and foremost that the leash and collar are secure.

You have already seen on this thread what a "small dog bite" has done to ruin the life of someone.  What if it was a 2 year old baby's eye that your dog "took just a small bite" from?  Does the level of damage somehow mitigate your responsibility?  What if the lady not paying attention sort of missed a stop sign and took out a van full of pre-schoolers?  I mean, it isn't like she MEANT to do any damage.

Responsibility. It is what adults take.

The difference is; It wasn't a baby's eye - it wasn't a van full of pre-schoolers.  Why should you punish them like it was?

KC

[EastFacingNorth]

IMO, anyone who has a dog and lives within a quarter mile of anyone else should fence in their yard.

Not for the protection of others, but for the protection of your dog.  There are crazy people out there who will kill your dog just for being a dog - that is, friendly.  Then there are sicko teenagers who will try to catch your dog and torture it.

If you love your pups, keep them away from strangers.

[Texacon]

If you have a leash law and your dog wasn't leashed, you are toast. You are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil sanctions, which you will certainly lose.

It doesn't matter if your dog slipped the leash -- there is absolute liability and you are presumed negligent.

I recommend you pay for medical bills and maybe throw in some additional money.  And pray this guy doesn't press it.

To tell you the truth, if a dog bit me, even if it was a small bite, I would sue the owner for everything possible and get the dog muzzled if the first time and destroyed if the second time.  And Pit Bulls these days don't get the first strike, with good reason.

Sorry, your negligence doesn't rate much sympathy.  Nor will it in court.

Why?  Seriously ..... Why?  things happen, it is as simple as that.  I have been hit from the rear by a lady who simply wasn't paying attention.  Her car was damaged, my pickup wasn't.  I wasn't hurt and neither was my wife (girlfriend at the time).  What would the purpose of suing accomplish?  No harm, no foul.

It is simple stuff like that that clogs our judicial system.  Why not just say, "Hey it didn't hurt me" and move on?  There is no reason to make something big out of this or anything else that truly didn't hurt you.

KC

And you get to decide what "truly hurts?" A small bite hurts. A dog attacking you is freaking scary.  Not paying attention when you are driving is both criminal and just wrong.  When you decide to get into a multi-ton machine capable of complete devastation, you had damn well better be paying attention.  When you take an animal capable of doing damage to someone out, you had better make sure you pay attention to all the details, first and foremost that the leash and collar are secure.

You have already seen on this thread what a "small dog bite" has done to ruin the life of someone.  What if it was a 2 year old baby's eye that your dog "took just a small bite" from?  Does the level of damage somehow mitigate your responsibility?  What if the lady not paying attention sort of missed a stop sign and took out a van full of pre-schoolers?  I mean, it isn't like she MEANT to do any damage.

Responsibility. It is what adults take.

By the way, I have been bit by dogs both large and small.  The small dog hurt the back of my leg.  Actually broke the skin but I lived and the owner apologized.  The large dog was shot .... by me.  It was a mean dog and had bitten more than just me and the owner was amenable to having it put down.

I went to a clients home once (sorry for the story but I think it fits) and she had 2 large German Shepherds.  She asked if I had a problem going in the back yard with them loose.  I told her I did not BUT, I told her, if one of them bites me I will kill it.  I wasn't kidding and she knew it.  She went and tied them up.  Had one of those dogs broken loose after she took precautions I wouldn't have killed it because she did what she needed to do and things happen.  Accidents happen whether we like it or not.  There is a difference between negligence and an accident the the two should never be treated/judged/penalized the same.

KC

[jendf]

The irony of all of this is Rebel Yell and his neighbor have probably worked things out and we are all still fighting about it.  Ah, the internets.

[Texacon]

The irony of all of this is Rebel Yell and his neighbor have probably worked things out and we are all still fighting about it.  Ah, the internets.

H5.

KC

[Chris_]

If you have a leash law and your dog wasn't leashed, you are toast. You are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil sanctions, which you will certainly lose.

It doesn't matter if your dog slipped the leash -- there is absolute liability and you are presumed negligent.

I recommend you pay for medical bills and maybe throw in some additional money.  And pray this guy doesn't press it.

To tell you the truth, if a dog bit me, even if it was a small bite, I would sue the owner for everything possible and get the dog muzzled if the first time and destroyed if the second time.  And Pit Bulls these days don't get the first strike, with good reason.

Sorry, your negligence doesn't rate much sympathy.  Nor will it in court.

Why?  Seriously ..... Why?  things happen, it is as simple as that.  I have been hit from the rear by a lady who simply wasn't paying attention.  Her car was damaged, my pickup wasn't.  I wasn't hurt and neither was my wife (girlfriend at the time).  What would the purpose of suing accomplish?  No harm, no foul.

It is simple stuff like that that clogs our judicial system.  Why not just say, "Hey it didn't hurt me" and move on?  There is no reason to make something big out of this or anything else that truly didn't hurt you.

KC

And you get to decide what "truly hurts?" A small bite hurts. A dog attacking you is freaking scary.  Not paying attention when you are driving is both criminal and just wrong.  When you decide to get into a multi-ton machine capable of complete devastation, you had damn well better be paying attention.  When you take an animal capable of doing damage to someone out, you had better make sure you pay attention to all the details, first and foremost that the leash and collar are secure.

You have already seen on this thread what a "small dog bite" has done to ruin the life of someone.  What if it was a 2 year old baby's eye that your dog "took just a small bite" from?  Does the level of damage somehow mitigate your responsibility?  What if the lady not paying attention sort of missed a stop sign and took out a van full of pre-schoolers?  I mean, it isn't like she MEANT to do any damage.

Responsibility. It is what adults take.

The difference is; It wasn't a baby's eye - it wasn't a van full of pre-schoolers.  Why should you punish them like it was?

KC

Because laws and morality aren't outcome based.  They are behavior-based. And,as I said, this wasn't a harmless event. Someone was hurt.   Who are you to say how painful that hurt was?

Does the level of outcome change the initial behavior?  Think it through. Someone lets their dog slip out of its collar.  Scenario 1: It bites a man in the hand.  Scenario 2: It bites a baby in the eye.  How do Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 change the underlying negligent act?  Answer: Not at all.  The initial act is the same. The level of negligence is the same. Criminally, they are also identical.

Only liberals measure morals by intentions. 

[Texacon]

If you have a leash law and your dog wasn't leashed, you are toast. You are subject to criminal penalties as well as civil sanctions, which you will certainly lose.

It doesn't matter if your dog slipped the leash -- there is absolute liability and you are presumed negligent.

I recommend you pay for medical bills and maybe throw in some additional money.  And pray this guy doesn't press it.

To tell you the truth, if a dog bit me, even if it was a small bite, I would sue the owner for everything possible and get the dog muzzled if the first time and destroyed if the second time.  And Pit Bulls these days don't get the first strike, with good reason.

Sorry, your negligence doesn't rate much sympathy.  Nor will it in court.

Why?  Seriously ..... Why?  things happen, it is as simple as that.  I have been hit from the rear by a lady who simply wasn't paying attention.  Her car was damaged, my pickup wasn't.  I wasn't hurt and neither was my wife (girlfriend at the time).  What would the purpose of suing accomplish?  No harm, no foul.

It is simple stuff like that that clogs our judicial system.  Why not just say, "Hey it didn't hurt me" and move on?  There is no reason to make something big out of this or anything else that truly didn't hurt you.

KC

And you get to decide what "truly hurts?" A small bite hurts. A dog attacking you is freaking scary.  Not paying attention when you are driving is both criminal and just wrong.  When you decide to get into a multi-ton machine capable of complete devastation, you had damn well better be paying attention.  When you take an animal capable of doing damage to someone out, you had better make sure you pay attention to all the details, first and foremost that the leash and collar are secure.

You have already seen on this thread what a "small dog bite" has done to ruin the life of someone.  What if it was a 2 year old baby's eye that your dog "took just a small bite" from?  Does the level of damage somehow mitigate your responsibility?  What if the lady not paying attention sort of missed a stop sign and took out a van full of pre-schoolers?  I mean, it isn't like she MEANT to do any damage.

Responsibility. It is what adults take.

The difference is; It wasn't a baby's eye - it wasn't a van full of pre-schoolers.  Why should you punish them like it was?

KC

Because laws and morality aren't outcome based.  They are behavior-based. And,as I said, this wasn't a harmless event. Someone was hurt.   Who are you to say how painful that hurt was?

Does the level of outcome change the initial behavior?  Think it through. Someone lets their dog slip out of its collar.  Scenario 1: It bites a man in the hand.  Scenario 2: It bites a baby in the eye.  How do Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 change the underlying negligent act?  Answer: Not at all.  The initial act is the same. The level of negligence is the same. Criminally, they are also identical.

Only liberals measure morals by intentions. 

Wrong.  A tie rod breaks on my vehicle and I swerve into oncoming traffic and kill someone.  I get drunk and swerve into oncoming traffic and kill someone.

What are the legal ramifications of these two acts?  Someone died in both instances.  Will I go to jail in both accounts?

KC

[Chris_]

Wrong.  A tie rod breaks on my vehicle and I swerve into oncoming traffic and kill someone.  I get drunk and swerve into oncoming traffic and kill someone.

What are the legal ramifications of these two acts?  Someone died in both instances.  Will I go to jail in both accounts?

KC

1) You are backwards -- I posited one EVENT with multiple OUTCOMES.  You posited multiple EVENTS with the same OUTCOME.  These are not the same.

2) To answer your question: it depends. If you knew the tie rod was about to fail and took no action, then you may indeed be guilty of manslaughter.  Getting drunk and then driving is prima facie INTENTIONAL negligence and is very much manslaughter or even murder.

There is a concept in the law called "strict liability." FWIIW it very much applies to leashing your dog.

[Texacon]

Only liberals measure morals by intentions. 

Wrong.  A tie rod breaks on my vehicle and I swerve into oncoming traffic and kill someone.  I get drunk and swerve into oncoming traffic and kill someone.

What are the legal ramifications of these two acts?  Someone died in both instances.  Will I go to jail in both accounts?

Wait... so is Jesus a liberal  JK freedumb, I understand where you're going

Oh sheesh.  In one case we have someone performing a criminal act.  In the other, an unfortunate act of fate, and in a no-fault state....  yes, I think the outcomes would be quite different 

Vonne, That is exactly what I'm talking about.  If someone does all within their power to prevent an incident should/would that person be held as responsible as someone who is negligent?  Nothing more, nothing less.  If Rebel let his dogs run wild and they bit someone it would be different if said dog slipped a leash, broke a clip, climbed/jumped a fence ...... 

KC

[Chris_]

Vonne, That is exactly what I'm talking about.  If someone does all within their power to prevent an incident should/would that person be held as responsible as someone who is negligent?  Nothing more, nothing less.  If Rebel let his dogs run wild and they bit someone it would be different if said dog slipped a leash, broke a clip, climbed/jumped a fence ...... 

KC

Strict Liability.  You have a greater duty of care with a dog relative to your duty to driving a vehicle.  I know that sounds strange, but since the law (and morality) ask so little of a dog owner that it is considered to be essential that you do them 100%

[jendf]

Wait... so is Jesus a liberal   JK freedumb, I understand where you're going

Oh sheesh.  In one case we have someone performing a criminal act.  In the other, an unfortunate act of fate, and in a no-fault state....  yes, I think the outcomes would be quite different 

Apparently!  

[Texacon]

Because laws and morality aren't outcome based.  They are behavior-based. And,as I said, this wasn't a harmless event. Someone was hurt.   Who are you to say how painful that hurt was?

Does the level of outcome change the initial behavior?  Think it through. Someone lets their dog slip out of its collar.  Scenario 1: It bites a man in the hand.  Scenario 2: It bites a baby in the eye.  How do Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 change the underlying negligent act?  Answer: Not at all.  The initial act is the same. The level of negligence is the same. Criminally, they are also identical.

Only liberals measure morals by intentions. 

I think this is where our differences come from.  You make the assumption that someone "Lets their dog slip out of its collar" .... I make the assumption that the owner has taken all precautions to prevent the animal from breaking loose yet it does.

I still offer that if I take all precautions to restrain my animal and it breaks free and bites someone that a jury will not find me negligent and you would have no case.  As I said;  Accidents happen and most are aware of this.

KC

[Texacon]

Vonne, That is exactly what I'm talking about.  If someone does all within their power to prevent an incident should/would that person be held as responsible as someone who is negligent?  Nothing more, nothing less.  If Rebel let his dogs run wild and they bit someone it would be different if said dog slipped a leash, broke a clip, climbed/jumped a fence ...... 

KC

Strict Liability.  You have a greater duty of care with a dog relative to your duty to driving a vehicle.  I know that sounds strange, but since the law (and morality) ask so little of a dog owner that it is considered to be essential that you do them 100%

And if I bought a brand new leash and collar yet the clip broke (manufacturer defect) I would not be liable.  You may have a claim against the clip/leash manufacturer but not against me.  I have taken all precautions.

KC

[Chris_]

I think this is where our differences come from.  You make the assumption that someone "Lets their dog slip out of its collar" .... I make the assumption that the owner has taken all precautions to prevent the animal from breaking loose yet it does.

I still offer that if I take all precautions to restrain my animal and it breaks free and bites someone that a jury will not find me negligent and you would have no case.  As I said;  Accidents happen and most are aware of this.

KC

You would be wrong.  You are 100% responsible. Unless someone were to come up to you and cut the leash, you would be liable.  It is your duty to ensure the leash is good, the collar is appropriately cinched and that you have a solid unbreakable grip. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Chris_]

And if I bought a brand new leash and collar yet the clip broke (manufacturer defect) I would not be liable.  You may have a claim against the clip/leash manufacturer but not against me.  I have taken all precautions.

KC

You are reaching now.  You would still be sued and it would be incumbent on you to prove your collar or leash is defective.   It would be a burden shift, making it the responsibility of the defend (you) to prove "innocence."

[Texacon]

I think this is where our differences come from.  You make the assumption that someone "Lets their dog slip out of its collar" .... I make the assumption that the owner has taken all precautions to prevent the animal from breaking loose yet it does.

I still offer that if I take all precautions to restrain my animal and it breaks free and bites someone that a jury will not find me negligent and you would have no case.  As I said;  Accidents happen and most are aware of this.

KC

You would be wrong.  You are 100% responsible. Unless someone were to come up to you and cut the leash, you would be liable.  It is your duty to ensure the leash is good, the collar is appropriately cinched and that you have a solid unbreakable grip. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Ok, good luck with that in court.     I'll make you a deal.  You sound like you are fearful of dogs.  I won't bring my 10# dogs around you and you don't flip a spider on me.  That sounds like a fair deal!   

KC

[Chris_]

I think this is where our differences come from.  You make the assumption that someone "Lets their dog slip out of its collar" .... I make the assumption that the owner has taken all precautions to prevent the animal from breaking loose yet it does.

I still offer that if I take all precautions to restrain my animal and it breaks free and bites someone that a jury will not find me negligent and you would have no case.  As I said;  Accidents happen and most are aware of this.

KC

You would be wrong.  You are 100% responsible. Unless someone were to come up to you and cut the leash, you would be liable.  It is your duty to ensure the leash is good, the collar is appropriately cinched and that you have a solid unbreakable grip. 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Ok, good luck with that in court.   :rotf:  I'll make you a deal.  You sound like you are fearful of dogs.  I won't bring my 10# dogs around you and you don't flip a spider on me.  That sounds like a fair deal!   :cheersmate:

KC

Do you know anything about the law?

You would lose, unless you could prove some external agency (defect or a person cutting the leash) intervened.  The fact "you did your best" would mean nothing.  If the dog slips the collar, you didn't cinch it properly.  if the leash breaks, you didn't have one sufficient to restrain your dog.  That will be your position going into court.

As I have tried to educate you: Owning a dog puts you in a position of strict liability and puts a substantial duty on you.  It is not a legal burden that cannot be overcome, but it is a presumption of your failure.

And I had a 85# pure-bred AKC papered German Shepherd that I put through Schutzhund training along side of Police Dogs and showed for many years, before my ex-wife got her in the divorce  -- so dogs aren't a real problem for me.

[Texacon]

Do you know anything about the law?

You would lose, unless you could prove some external agency (defect or a person cutting the leash) intervened.  The fact "you did your best" would mean nothing.  If the dog slips the collar, you didn't cinch it properly.  if the leash breaks, you didn't have one sufficient to restrain your dog.  That will be your position going into court.

As I have tried to educate you: Owning a dog puts you in a position of strict liability and puts a substantial duty on you.  It is not a legal burden that cannot be overcome, but it is a presumption of your failure.

And I had a 85# pure-bred AKC papered German Shepherd that I put through Schutzhund training along side of Police Dogs and showed for many years, before my ex-wife got her in the divorce  -- so dogs aren't a real problem for me.

I'm not a lawyer but yes, I know some about the law.  I know what negligence is.  I know what an accident is and how it is viewed LEGALLY.  I also know, in Texas at least, a dog is allowed one bite.  I have served on 2 juries and I know how the process worked.  Common sense prevailed in both cases.

I know if I do what is considered reasonable I will not be found liable.  I know what I've been arguing vs. what you have been arguing are 2 entirely different things.  You are suggesting negligence on the part of the owner while I have been suggesting an accident and the 2 will never cross paths.

I know laws are different in different parts of the nation (thank God above) for good reason.  Had Joe Horn been in other parts of the country he would have been a felon.  Here in Texas he is a hero and I wish he was my neighbor.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this issue as it would be handled differently in other parts of the world.  I know if one of my neighbors got a scratch on them and decided to sue me I would probably whup their ass then we would have a real court date.  Yeah, I'm a knuckle draggin' mouth breather but .... it works for me and most folks actually like me.  Common sense should prevail.  A scratch is not stitches no matter how much you wish they were. 

As stated in another post.  I finished a law suit about a year ago.  I won.  I found there is a whole lot of stuff you ain't getting paid for.  I didn't try but I was told before we even started I couldn't sue for certain things.  I didn't want to sue the guy I sued and I had serious injuries.  A level II separation of my right shoulder and 2 broken ribs on top of a neck injury to the neck I broke 7 years ago.  Yeah, there was a lot I couldn't have recovered for even if I had wanted to and I had no dog in the fight.

KC

PS; I'm about as far from a liberal as you can get. 

[Chris_]

As stated in another post.  I finished a law suit about a year ago.  I won.  I found there is a whole lot of stuff you ain't getting paid for.  I didn't try but I was told before we even started I couldn't sue for certain things.  I didn't want to sue the guy I sued and I had serious injuries.  A level II separation of my right shoulder and 2 broken ribs on top of a neck injury to the neck I broke 7 years ago.  Yeah, there was a lot I couldn't have recovered for even if I had wanted to and I had no dog in the fight.

Youch!  Well, you can sue for anything, but whether you can win or even proceed is another question.

PS; I'm about as far from a liberal as you can get. 

I was disappointed in how you stretched your argument in ad absurdum  -- which is, of course, libbie-land.  But I admit to some snarkiosity and apologize: I know you ain't no liberal fer damn sure. :)

As my PS to the issue: Very few dog bite cases get in front of juries and for the most part the law and judges are sympathetic to the victim and hold the dog owner to a very high duty standard.  My advice: Caveat Canentum.
 

[Texacon]

Youch!  Well, you can sue for anything, but whether you can win or even proceed is another question.

Yes, you are correct.  I worded that poorly.  I most definitely could have  sued for certain things but the attorney didn't want to waste anyone's time.

I was disappointed in how you stretched your argument in ad absurdum  -- which is, of course, libbie-land.  But I admit to some snarkiosity and apologize: I know you ain't no liberal fer damn sure.

As my PS to the issue: Very few dog bite cases get in front of juries and for the most part the law and judges are sympathetic to the victim and hold the dog owner to a very high duty standard.  My advice: Caveat Canentum.
 

I have to say I generally agree with most of your posts but this was one where we parted ways.  It happens.  Life would be one boring journey if we all felt the same way about things.

Have a good evening and a better week!

KC

[Texacon]

Rebel,  Go tie your damn dog up!   

KC

[debk]

After a recent experience, I think Freedumb may be pretty much on target.

I sell real estate, and have for the last 11+ yrs, in Knoxville TN and the surrounding area.

Recently I sold a house....and the closing was delayed because the buyer could not get homeowner's insurance(hazard insurance) and it was required by their mortgage company.

Logic would say that they were having trouble because of previous claims.....

Logic would be wrong!

It was because they had a Doberman!!!!

As it was explained to me by the buyer's agent and the buyer, insurance companies are now asking if you have a dog weighing over 50 pounds. If that 50+ pound dog is an attack breed or part of an attack breed, it's a good chance that you may be denied insurance coverage. An attack dog is a pit bull, Doberman, German shepherd, rottweiller, and there was another one that I can't remember.

These people tried 3 different companies, before the 4th one would allow them to purchase insurance. They had to have a special rider for the dog.

Their agent told me they were considering lying to get the insurance, in order to close as quickly as possible. ( I sell foreclosures, and the banks frown on any delay and by contract can impose a $100-150/day penalty on the buyer for any buyer-related delay). Their agent strongly discouraged that because if they had a claim, not only would it not be paid, they would most likely be cancelled and have a huge problem obtaining new insurance.

I also know there are some areas with a "3-bite" limit. My sister lives in the Akron area. Her brother's dog bit the mailman. It was the 2nd time, he was not on a lease but out on the driveway with his owner. The mailman came onto the property, the dog nipped his leg. According to the dog owner, he looked at the mailman's leg. There was no mark. When I was up there at Christmas-time, they had just received a letter from a lawyer wanting them to pay for the mailman's medical bills and compensation from 3 days off of work! They also received a letter from either the city or county animal control, that if they received one more complaint about the dog...he would be put down. The dog is a small Scottie.

I don't think there is a "bite limit" here...I do know, if the cops are called and the dog has bitten someone, the cops can kill it. We do have a leash law here even in the county....and the owner is totally responsible for the animal's behavior. One of the reason I only have cats now.