Just wanna add my .02 cents. When a dog gets out it's ALWAYS the owners fault. Whether the dog climbed the fence, dug under it.... whatever. I personally think that a dog should not be left in a yard unsupervised for this very reason, unless in a kennel with a roof. Obviously this dog was not under any supervision since it had the opportunity to get out.

I personally own two dobes and even though I live in a rural area, I have taken every precaution I could think of to make sure that they have a yard that they can't get out of. We have an 8 foot wooden fence with a 2 foot overhang all around so that they can't climb over. On the outside all around we have put railroad ties in the ground so they can't dig under. As far as the gate goes.... there's a lock on it.

As far as the dog in this incident, I think it would be in everybody's best interests if the dog was taken away from his owner, evaluated by somebody competent, and placed in a home where he would get proper socialization, confinment, and training. Obviously this person should not have a dog period.

Yea, willfully left dog outside where it was possible that dog could escape.

 Quote:

Negligence is a willful disregard of the law and public safty.

Negligence

-Not only are people responsible for the intentional harm they cause, but their failure to act as a reasonable person would be expected to act in similar circumstances (i.e. "negligence") will also give rise to compensation. Negligence, if it causes injury to another, can give rise to a liability suit under tort. Negligence is always assessed having regards to the circumstances and to the standard of care which would reasonably be expected of a person in similar circumstances. Everybody has a duty to ensure that their actions do not cause harm to others. Between negligence and the intentional act there lies yet another, more serious type of negligence which is called gross negligence.

Gross negligence is any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another. See also contributory negligence and comparative negligence.

Contributory negligence

-The negligence of a person which, while not being the primary cause of a tort, nevertheless combined with the act or omission of the primary defendant to cause the tort, and without which the tort would not have occurred.

http://www.duhaime.org/diction.htm

And here's willful:

willful
adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious and directed toward achieving a purpose. Some willful conduct which has wrongful or unfortunate results is considered "hardheaded," "stubborn" and even "malicious." Example: "The defendant's attack on his neighbor was willful."

No VanCamp, I am not the owner. Though I would like to live in their house from the pictures I have seen. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Kurze, what you quoted was tort (civil) law. That does not apply to criminal charges.
Criminal Negligence, Though the legislatures and the courts have often made it clear that criminal liability generally requires more fault than the ordinary negligence which will do for tort liability. The differences between the two is that for criminal negligence the defendant must realize that his actions posed a wilful and wanton disregard for the rights or safety of others. Unreasonable risk, The degree of which neglignece requires is said to be an unreasonable risk of harm to others (either to persons or property). Unreasonable risk is an expression which takes into account the fact that we all create risk to others in our everyday affairs without subjecting ourselves to liability for negligence.
Give me time and I will post caselaw in regards to animals. And no I am not a lawyer, so please no threats. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

One of the articles said that the gate was unlocked. Would that not be negligence?

I would think so. But, it sure doesn't make much difference here, in my never humble opinion.

I want to make a point. As owners of dogs, especially dogs that have the capability of hurting people, is is our responsibiliy to be abslutely sure the dog is under control at all times. If we all did that, there would never be any cases like this one. And lets be honest, most of the people that have working dogs know their dogs could hurt someone if certain situations presented themselves.

(none of my dogs would bite someone in my presence, but if they were out loose they would be making decisions on their own, not the best idea with a stupid animal)

We make decisions to buy and raise certain types of dogs, we need to take all the necessary precautions to eliminate the possibility of them hurting someone. It doesn't matter if it is a misunderstood playful prey nip, or a different type of bite. It also doesn't matter if a person is going to be responsible legally. You are responsible morally. I would swear off dogs and have some serious personal problems if any animal I owned ever hurt a child. There is just NO excuse. None. . .

The media really messes things up, but the fact remains no matter what the details are. That dog did something to that child. No excuse. . .

Well, maybe just maybe under tort (civil) law. But not under criminal law.
The defendant must knowingly or intentionally do an act or omit to act, or he knowingly or intentionally cause a specified harmful result of his act or omission. So the answer is no. Just because we all know how to handle animals and know their abilities, does not mean someone else does. The owner must have specfic knowledge that his animal is dangerous and has shown dangerous propensities in the past. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree with your last post completly VanCamp.

 Quote:

Originally posted by dobeonguard:
The owner must have specfic knowledge that his animal is dangerous and has shown dangerous propensities in the past.

I guess this is the part that gets my goat the most. ALL dogs can bite, even old half deaf toothless ones. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it won't happen.

When I groomed for a living, I had more people tell me as their dog was bareing teeth at me "oh, he has never bitten anyone" :rolleyes:

Regaurdless of the loopholes in the law, we all as dog owners need to be responsible for the dogs we own. You have to remember that they are basically the equivalent of a three year old in the head, and I wouldn't let a three year old run about.