Originally posted by VVG:
If the man were walking a tiger and ate the child, who would be liable? Oh thats right, tigers are illegal in cities. Dogs are not illegal, so far, because they are not dangerous?
Can you tell I feel strongly on this issue? The owner would be liable because wild animals fall under the theory of strict tort liability, not because they are illegal. In fact, even people who legally own wild animals, i.e. tigers, are still held to the strict liability standards because wild animals are an inherently dangerous circumstance. Domesticated animals are, by statute, not.

How about this! My insurance agent(a friend) suggested I remove the warning signs from my yard and kennel. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Go figure. He said I was saying my dogs were a libility with the BEWARE DANGEROUS DOG sign. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> :rolleyes:

Yes, that is true. You need a sign that says dogs in yard, GSD crossing, something like that. Something that lets people know you have dogs, however, you are not admitting they are vicious. If you say BEWARE you 'know' you have a bad dog!

Scary isn't it?

Sorry 5-O, I'm not a lawyer, and know not enough about dogs yet. I'm not arguing law, just my slightly tainted opinion.

Also post no signs in my business, where I keep my PP dog out of the public eye.

At home kennel w/top surrounded by 6' unclimbable fence. like a pool

Two things to think about:

1. As Five-O Joe stated, the owner's liability will depend upon, among other things, the laws regarding comparative/contributory negligence in effect in that jurisdiction. Depending on the state of the law, this could relieve the owner from all liability or, at the least, reduce any damages.

Also, where I live (IL), there is a law on vicious/dangerous dogs which addresses whether a dog is provoked by the person who is bitten. Depending on the jurisdiction and specific law, this may or may not impact the owner's liability. Additionally, what is the history of the Rott? This would obviously play a big role in determining whether the owner would be liable.

2. while I know nothing about the pitt incident described by Shane, I suspect liability on the owner was based upon the fact that a 3 year old could get into the "secure" kennel housing this dog.

Bottom line is, as 50Joe said, these incidents are a real pain in the ass from a legal standpoint not to mention from the point of view of the owner and child.

A dog doesn't have to be vicious in order to bite someone. All dogs are capable of biting if provoked. What if someone has their dog on a leash, the dog is minding it's own business, when out of nowhere comes a child who runs up and grabs the dog? Even worse, what if the child runs up BEHIND the dog, the dog gets spooked, and nips the child? I certainly believe the parent should be liable in a situation like that. I pesonally don't think a dog needs to be vicious, aggressive, or even weak nerved to react this way. After all, how would you react if someone/something either ran up to you unexpectedly or caught you off guard by sneaking up from behind? Wouldn't you get defensive at first? I just think it's crazy to say that the owner is always responsible if their dog bites someone. No matter where you live, that's something that should be decided on a case by case basis.

No question that some of the fault lies in the negligent supervision of the child. This however does not eliminate all liability on the part of the owner. Liability can be found in all sorts of ridiculous circumstances - particularly with children. There is a creation in law of attractive nuisance. In other words, if you place a shiny spinning whirlygig on your front lawn that consists of knives, broken bottles, etc. ie things that kids would think are cool - and a kid reaches out and gets his hand chopped off, you're going to be liable. just check out cases of kids getting hurt on train tracks and industrial equipment.

I'm not arguing whether it's fair or not, just the way it is. Also, keep in mind, that when a jury sees a kid who has been mauled, they generally don't care how or why or who is responsible, they simply want to help the kid by awarding a ton of money. trust me, it happens all the time.

Also, for all the people who complain that plaintiff's get ridiculous awards (believe me I'm one of them) and that the plaintiff's attorneys are to blame, just remember that it is juries of citizens who find defendants/dogowners guilty and who decide how much to award. not the judges, plaintiff's attorneys, and certainly not defense attorneys.

All of these scenarios are fine....everybody keeps leaving out one person that is the most resopnsible for what happens with the dog.... the handler.

It is the responsibility of the handler to be aware of the surroundings, the temperament of the dog, and the potential dangers that can approach them. For example, the handler should identify that the kid is coming and take appropriate action based on the way the dog will react. It should be a very rare situation that the dog is caught off guard, because the handler should warn the dog about what is coming. If a kid is taking a 15+ yard run at your dog, you need to make sure that the child doesn't put it's self in harms way. The handler should take control of the situation and prevent it from happening.

Amen Melissa I agree 100%.But sad to say in the sue happy society we live in if the Rott would have bit the child the owner would have been liable at least in my state <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> . To me this contadicts all common sence.