Wednesday, June 11, 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 


Anonymous Anonymous  |  6/14/2008 11:32 AM  |  Flag  
The landlord in this case should turn around and sue animal control..Clearly, they failed their public safety responsibilities in this case, also.

Anonymous KoryNDenver  |  10/24/2008 8:28 AM  |  Flag  
"anonymous" - what you fail to understand is that most government employees and officials have immunity from such civil lawsuits, which is a public policy concept that allows people to take such dangerous jobs. Who would want to be a judge, cop, sheriff, EMT, etc. if they were so exposed to liability? Here, while the facts are limited, the dogs were contained in a secure building. Animal control was contacted and responded - only no one was there to physically remove the dogs from the building and transfer possession to the animal control officers. What did the A/C officers do that was a "failure"? Nothing I can see. This is a great example of how civil plaintiffs attorneys can help force irresponsible pit bull owners and property owners to become responsible. Property Insurance Companies probably have amazing statistics on the risks pit bulls create - but all of that data is propietary, so it is virtually impossible to get that data. Any pit bull restrictions that actually allow for any pit bull to remain in a community should have strict standards for the owners to carry MASSIVE insurance -- this verdict can provide justification for the level of insurance coverage to be in the Multi-Million Dollar Level -- $5-7 Million.

Post a Comment »