Dog Attack- Liability question - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Titan · 10-03-2014, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jammies

Imagine how much money we could save on the court system if we just agreed to bind ourselves by what's obviously true on the internet.

It's just common sense.

flylock shox · 10-03-2014, 04:05 PM

Many provinces (perhaps including Alberta, I don't know) impose strict liability in cases where a dog's owner knows the dog has a propensity to attack or act aggressively. The doctrine is generally referred to as scienter.

What this means is that, even if the dog's owner took reasonable precautions and might not ordinarily have been found negligent, the fact they chose to own a dog known to have dangerous tendencies is enough to found liability in the event the dog attacks causing damage. Have a look on canlii.ca for the term "scienter" to get a sense of what it means, and to see if something similar applies in Alberta either via common law or legislation.

In terms of damages, without speaking to this case specifically, courts generally compensate reasonable expenses flowing from a tort. This generally means a damaged plaintiff can pay reasonable sums to fix the damage (reasonable usually including top quality care, but not experimental care or care beyond the realm of what is reasonable) and can expect to get that money back from the person who committed the tort.

If it were me, I wouldn't pay anything without seeing a bill for services first, and given the likelihood that this isn't a one-time-deal (i.e. there may well be further expenses down the line) I wouldn't pay anything until I had it written down that the payment was in full settlement of the matter.

If it were me, I'd also talk to a lawyer and avoid putting any details of the case into the public realm.

Good luck to your friend.

JiriHrdina · 10-03-2014, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I didn't send you anything.

I posted it in the thread. It says the Act # in the link.....

Anyway. Arya Stark, it appears I havn't been successful in convincing you that in this matter it isn't black and white. We have batted this around like a puck with no luck.....

Have we not asked for posters not to do this? Like many times???

Zevo · 10-03-2014, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sliver

Sad situation. If it were me I'd put the dog down and take a cash settlement.

If it were you you wouldn't have a dog to begin with...

VladtheImpaler · 10-04-2014, 07:24 AM

Your friend is liable to some extent (from 50 to 100, likely much closer to the latter), depending on what the other owner/dog were doing. This is almost certainly covered by home insurance, so my advice is to report it to them and let them deal with any claims...

OutOfTheCube · 10-04-2014, 08:09 AM

Kill the other dog.

No more expenses!

LTH · 10-05-2014, 02:47 PM

So my question is, how much liability is reasonable in a situation like this? I mean, is there a ceiling on how much someone should have to pay? Should a family be put into financial ruin to pay for a dog's medical bills? What if the person wanted their pet to live no matter the cost and the bills got into the 6 figures? Is that reasonable? I know for me 9000 plus whatver she paid already would be very bad for me and take many years to pay off and I think that would be true for most ppl. IMO people are way too attached to their pets. I had dogs growing up and I loved them but my family would never have been able to pay that kind of money for a dog s medical expenses.

JiriHrdina · 10-05-2014, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTH

So my question is, how much liability is reasonable in a situation like this? I mean, is there a ceiling on how much someone should have to pay? Should a family be put into financial ruin to pay for a dog's medical bills? What if the person wanted their pet to live no matter the cost and the bills got into the 6 figures? Is that reasonable? I know for me 9000 plus whatver she paid already would be very bad for me and take many years to pay off and I think that would be true for most ppl. IMO people are way too attached to their pets. I had dogs growing up and I loved them but my family would never have been able to pay that kind of money for a dog s medical expenses.

The ceiling is different for each person and not up to the person who's dog attacked

GGG · 10-05-2014, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The ceiling is different for each person and not up to the person who's dog attacked

Should the person be entitled to more money than they value the dog at?

If I had a 5k cap of what I would spend to save my dog shouldn't that be the cap as to the value of my dog regardless of the reason for the injury?

JiriHrdina · 10-05-2014, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGG

Should the person be entitled to more money than they value the dog at?

If I had a 5k cap of what I would spend to save my dog shouldn't that be the cap as to the value of my dog regardless of the reason for the injury?

No I don't know why it would. If I hate my car and you total it I get the same value regardless of what I would have been prepared to spend on it otherwise

GGG · 10-05-2014, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

No I don't know why it would. If I hate my car and you total it I get the same value regardless of what I would have been prepared to spend on it otherwise

That's because a car as a real value a dogs max real value is about 1k plus emotional attachment. So I am trying to assess a value for that emotional attachment. If you would only pay 5k for your dog why should an outsider pay more for it.

Perhaps a better standard would be what would you sell your dog for. If you offered dog owners 10k for their dog I would bet you would get some takers.

JiriHrdina · 10-05-2014, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGG

That's because a car as a real value a dogs max real value is about 1k plus emotional attachment. So I am trying to assess a value for that emotional attachment. If you would only pay 5k for your dog why should an outsider pay more for it.

Perhaps a better standard would be what would you sell your dog for. If you offered dog owners 10k for their dog I would bet you would get some takers.

My point of view is the person should be returned as close as possible to the state before they were wronged

heep223 · 10-06-2014, 09:02 PM

If my dog (which is around 25 pounds) was attacked and seriously injured by an aggressive, off leash dog, I would be so livid I don't even know what I would do. I get angry just thinking about it. All it takes is one moment of inattention, OP's friend should not have had an aggressive rescue animal if she couldn't be vigilant every single moment. This is why we got a puppy from a breeder even though we wanted to rescue...because we weren't prepared to be that "on the ball" at all times. Even though it was one mistake, it was extremely irresponsible to the detriment of another animal and family.

Devils'Advocate · 10-07-2014, 06:48 AM

This is awful.

I have volunteered to foster animals for the Humane Society and have volunteered to take dogs with behavioural problems. I'll first be checking on what liability I am responsible for before I take one home. I feel bad for the dog... it doesn't know better. There is no such thing as a bad dog, they just need time and training. But I'm not going to risk my financial well being on the hopes that the dog I am fostering doesn't somehow escape.

Having a dog slip out the door while you are coming in doesn't seem to be a $10,000 mistake. It's unfair all the way around. The other dog didn't deserve to be attacked and I feel for the other dog's owner. But I also feel for the person that was working hard with their dog to teach them proper behaviour only to have their life seriously impacted by the cost.