Saturday, March 22, 2008

Donate to
Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  5 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous David  |  3/22/2008 9:22 PM  |  Flag  
All of these are very good reasons for banning a dog.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  3/23/2008 1:38 AM  |  Flag  
This is an on-property, off-property issue. If a child picks up a ball that has landed on "Chopper's" property and Chopper kills the child, Chopper and his owner may be in the clear. Any person who is "on-property," may automatically disqualify as an "unprovoked attack" regardless of how innocent the act (such as picking up a ball).

Anonymous Anonymous  |  3/23/2008 1:40 AM  |  Flag  
Oh and, such as the Cocker spaniel that was torn up because he ventured onto Chopper's property...

Anonymous Anonymous  |  3/23/2008 6:25 AM  |  Flag  
Very significant law here...

Most places don't make explosive animal aggression a disqualifier. How many times do we see a six figure mauling with the statement:"The Pit Bull had previously killed a neighbor's dog"?

Anonymous Anonymous  |  3/23/2008 8:28 AM  |  Flag  
Sorry, but if you own a dog that could kill a child, you need a boundary fence. Just like if you had a swimming pool. As a civilized society, we recognize that a child may not have the cognitive ability to distinguish just how far a dogs chain can reach, or where the sidewalk ends and private property begins. Therefore, we take responsibility, as adults, for keeping children safe by altering our own behavior a bit.

Pool owners know that they are required to fence in their pool, and factor that into the cost of owning a pool. Dog owners should do the same thing, and be held legally liable when their companion animal attacks and seriously injures a child because of their negligence.

Post a Comment »