Thursday, January 16, 2014

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

posted by   |  permalink  |  6 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 

Post a Comment

The comment policy.


Blogger Your Quiet Neighbor  |  8/14/2013 1:55 PM  |  Flag  
Will this verdict motivate animal control agencies to start doing their job? Be nice if it did.

Blogger orangedog  |  8/14/2013 8:25 PM  |  Flag  
Um... how is the victim even 1% at fault here? Is it because she heard about the nasty pit bulls in her area and dared to sleep without padlocks and steel doors between her and the rampaging bullies? I'm not getting why it's ok to blame the victim for any part of the described attack. Is there some detail the media left out?

Blogger colleen lynn  |  8/14/2013 8:39 PM  |  Flag  
Orangedog, it is explained in the appellate ruling. It starts on page 19.

Blogger orangedog  |  8/15/2013 3:17 AM  |  Flag  
Wow. It's exactly what I guessed. So anyone who leaves their door open - or I imagine just having a screen door - is invitation for a bully home invasion. It's like saying it's ok for people to walk inside your house and beat the crap out of you if you leave the door unlocked. And now there's precedent so every owner of a bully home invader will try to argue that the victim is at fault for leaving the door open to her own property. Even 1% of the victim blame here is too much.

Blogger Your Quiet Neighbor  |  8/15/2013 11:33 AM  |  Flag  
Or what if you've left a door open because you're bringing the groceries inside? I guess if a pit bull attacks, it's your fault.

Blogger orangedog  |  8/15/2013 1:43 PM  |  Flag  
I'm really glad this woman got some money, but this 1% at fault part of the ruling is seriously FUBAR and sets a very bad precedent for future home invasion plaintiffs.
Unless locked in your home 24/7, at some point a door or window will be open in "pit hole", and one of those bastards will invite its way in.

Post a Comment »