Saturday, March 29, 2008

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

posted by   |  permalink  |  2 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

Post a Comment

The comment policy.


Anonymous Trigger  |  3/29/2008 1:00 PM  |  Flag  
This is a heck of a ruling. It means that if a person is "on-property" and attacked, the dog owner must actively help the victim (if present) or face civil liability charges. The fact that this needed to be spelled out by the high court indicates just how prevalent folks like Mott are: barbaric, reckless, unconscionable dog owners that typically own dangerous dogs, such as pit bulls and American bulldogs.

Too bad Mott could not be held criminally liable in this instance. Even if Bushnell's attack happened after Lillian's Law passed, it would not have applied. Lillian's law specifically deals with dogs that are "off-property." Texas needs an "on-property" Lillian's law too. Currently, if you bring your niece to visit an uncle's house -- who owns a few Ambulls -- and she gets mauled while on-property, the uncle is not civilly or criminally liable.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  3/30/2008 6:02 PM  |  Flag  
"First Bite Free" needs to go the way of the do-do bird. We are no longer a 16th agrarian society needing dogs for survival purposes.

Post a Comment »