Sunday, April 27, 2008

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

posted by   |  permalink  |  4 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Anonymous  |  4/27/2008 7:13 PM  |  Flag  
"Any animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animal without provocation."

Uh, isn't this the definition of a pit bull? Dog aggressive, prone to attack without warning. You don't train a pit to fight, it either is game or it isn't. So by the very definition of the law that is already on the books, all pit bulls should be considered vicious in that town.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  4/30/2008 8:16 PM  |  Flag  
This was the parents, or gaurdian of the child were completely neglegent, has any one here noticed that a 3 year old was wandering around, and got into the back yard where the pit bulls were?? I dont care what any one says, those pit bulls were protecting their property, and that child probably stood about two feet taller than those dogs, and they were intimidated!

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/01/2008 7:18 PM  |  Flag  
Anonymous, (2nd comment), you’re missing some information about the law.

Parents and guardians, of course, have obligations for their child’s safety. At the same time, the law recognizes that children have a propensity to move on their own legs, to explore by their own independent will, and to discover hazards without the ability to properly see and understand these hazards. For this reason, 'Attractive Nuisance' law stipulates that reasonable adults secure hazards from the interests of children. The onus of responsibility is upon the adult owner of dangerous property.

Communities typically build this responsibility into codes and ordinances wherever practicable. For example, a typical stipulation for swimming pools includes a code requirement for a 6’ fence. Where unattended pit bulls are concerned, a locked enclosure should be a matter of common sense.

The article indicates the child was a guest at the house, not a trespassing intruder. The owner of the pit bulls was aware of the child’s presence, was aware of the presence of pit bulls, and was negligent in providing for the child’s safety. It’s up to the district attorney to determine if this meets the standard for criminal process, but I can’t imagine a litigation attorney who wouldn’t love to represent this child in civil proceedings.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  5/03/2008 3:11 AM  |  Flag  
A 3 yr old is not two feet taller than a pitbull dog. Also I must agree pitbull dogs are notorious for being unpredicable animals. These dogs should not be left unchained, we have neighbors that have pitbulls and one of them jump the 6 feet fence around your yards. I live in Nampa and now learning the visious dag cirteria for this area this dog meets it. I will not be so hap to except the dog catchers relectance to take the dog next time it jumps the fence and is running the neighborhood.

Post a Comment »