Dog Attack- Liability question

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Uh you responded to Resolte14 with this



No they don't. If a dog needs a 9k lung surgery to survive then a 9k lung surgery is what it will get.

yeah that's right they have a monitary value.

Ok, and? That says nothing at all about what we are talking about, maybe post what you wanted me to read because I don't see anything relevant there.

Really, your read that, in what 4 mins.


I get an odd feeling of deja vu with you....................

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Titan

I wish I was as sure about anything as Stark is about everything. Must be a nice world to live in.

It is just common sense.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

yeah that's right they have a monitary value.

So you agree that a judge would never make someone put a dog down because of high vet bills then?

Really, your read that, in what 4 mins.


I get an odd feeling of deja vu with you....................

Unless my computer didn't bring up everything it actually took me two minutes.

Was there more than this?


DANGEROUS DOGS ACT Chapter D-3
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Complaint as to bite 1 A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person and if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. RSA 1980 cD-3 s1
Complaint as to dangerous dog 2(1) A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control and if it appears to the justice that the dog is dangerous, the justice may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner in a proper way or to be destroyed. (2) A person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order. RSA 1980 cD-3 s2
Presumption of ownership 3(1) The occupier of a house or premises where a dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of a complaint shall be presumed to be the owner of the dog unless the occupier proves that the occupier was not the owner of the dog at the time. (2) When there are more occupiers than one of a house or premises let in separate apartments or lodgings, or otherwise, the occupier of that particular part of the house or premises in which a dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of a complaint shall be presumed to be the owner of the dog unless the occupier proves that the occupier was not the owner of the dog at the time.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

So you agree that a judge would never make someone put a dog down because of high vet bills then?

I don't know. I do know that judges have been know to find costs incurred by a plaintiff in an action unreasonable and not award them completely.

Unless my computer didn't bring up everything it actually took me two minutes.

Was there more than this?


DANGEROUS DOGS ACT Chapter D-3
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Complaint as to bite 1 A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person and if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. RSA 1980 cD-3 s1
Complaint as to dangerous dog 2(1) A justice may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control and if it appears to the justice that the dog is dangerous, the justice may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner in a proper way or to be destroyed. (2) A person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order. RSA 1980 cD-3 s2
Presumption of ownership 3(1) The occupier of a house or premises where a dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of a complaint shall be presumed to be the owner of the dog unless the occupier proves that the occupier was not the owner of the dog at the time. (2) When there are more occupiers than one of a house or premises let in separate apartments or lodgings, or otherwise, the occupier of that particular part of the house or premises in which a dog was kept or permitted to live or remain at the time of a complaint shall be presumed to be the owner of the dog unless the occupier proves that the occupier was not the owner of the dog at the time.

And know I know you didn't even hit or read the link..............because it isn't the Dangerous Dogs Act.

[Arya Stark]

That's the one you sent me, what pops up for you?

[wretched34]

Article 3.1 leads me to bleive, that if the attacked dog was off leash, in an onleash area, the OP's friend could be found not at fault. As the owner of the attacked dog, did not take precaution by law to prevent the situation from occuring.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

That's the one you sent me, what pops up for you?

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.....

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I didn't send you anything.

I posted it in the thread.

Ok well you "posted" the dangerous dogs act unless you meant to post something else? So yes I did click and read what you posted.

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.....

You truly make no sense.

So did you post the wrong link?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The minute I took the dog home and it started behaving like that, I would have brought it right back to the humane society. Sorry, but later dude. Why would someone want that in their home?

I had this exact scenario a couple of years back but unfortunately didn't act on it right away.

The dog could only be described as a good dog prone to random psychotic episodes towards smaller dogs. And when I mean psychotic it went for it. The other dog could be submitting but it wanted the kill.

First attack was on a friends Golden Retriever pup on day 2 in the house. The pup was submitting and she was still going for the kill. Tore a hole in its ear with puncture wounds to the head. Literally had to pull it off and pin it to the ground. I gave her the benefit of the doubt as the attack happened outside her crate and put it down to her being territorial.

Final straw for me was when the third attack on a little overweight beagle with my son. Luckily I was yards away. Dog came up to say hello, bit of sniffing, tail wagging and boom, full scale attack. Same thing. Beagle rolls over to submit and she keeps going. Puncture wounds to the head. I got lucky all three times I didn't get a bill.

I took it back to the SPCA and got the treatment and obviously you're not prepared to work with it guilt trip. As far as I was concerned this was something you couldn't train out of a dog, it was a hard wiring issue.

But WRGMG was that the dog was readvertised with zero mention of the problems. Good dog, likes kids (it was good with kids) and loves to play with other dogs. The dog was readopted for someone else to deal with. Respect and trust for them has completely gone. In fairness, the Humane Society here in Ottawa will say if their dogs aren't suitable for cats/kids/other dogs.

So, all I would say is this. If adopting from a shelter, be very aware and unlike me the first time, go with your gut and your head and not your heart. Some things can't be trained out of a dog. e.g. If you take the dog for a walk and it is straining at the leash consider beyond that is not leash trained and maybe it has a very high prey drive. If you can, take it to a enclosed dog park and see how it goes and take someone that knows a thing or two about dogs with you that is not emotionally invested. Looking back I missed a lot of signs that the dog could be a problem.

At the end of the day for me. a dog is a source of love, comfort and relaxation. Not something I stress out about every time I am out. I strongly believe that dogs are no different to humans that some on them for whatever reason are just hard wired the wrong way and no amount of rehab will fix them.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Ok well you "posted" the dangerous dogs act unless you meant to post something else? So yes I did click and read what you posted.

Just for shiggles, I wonder if another post could click the link and let me know what it is.

You truly make no sense.

But it's common sense.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Just for shiggles, I wonder if another post could click the link and let me know what it is.





But it's common sense.

I hope so, then you can admit you were wrong after accusing me of not reading.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Just for shiggles, I wonder if another post could click the link and let me know what it is.





But it's common sense.

I got contributory negligence...not the dang dog act.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

I hope so, then you can admit you were wrong after accusing me of not reading.

huh?

Do you admit that there is not enough information in the OP to come to a conclusion that this is a "slam dunk" if it went to court?

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

I got contributory negligence...not the dang dog act.

Cheers

[Arya Stark]

That's odd. I just checked again and a pop up comes up and when I open the dangerous dogs act comes up again.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

That's odd. I just checked again and a pop up comes up and when I open the dangerous dogs act comes up again.

So you are saying things aren't always as they appear....

[Minnie]

$9000 sounds like total BS. For our dog to have surgery on its spine/back, we were quoted $3K for a very intricate surgery - $9K to reinflate a lung sounds like everyone's getting rooked. I should phone our vet and see what she'd quote.

FTR, I don't disagree with having to pay vet costs - I just think that $9K sounds terribly scammy.

[aaronck]

To answer questions, it was a freak occurrence, the other dog was on leash with it's owner, and the offender jumped out of the car and ran over and attacked, in a common area if the complex. The other dog did nothing to deserve this, it's just an accident and I think it's heading towards unfortunate end for the victim dog as it will require multiple surgeries no one can afford.
My question was more about how much is enough, I would never imagined having to foot a $9000 bill for another dog(or more for rehab/other surgeries etc), and even if it was my dog, I'd really have to think about it going forward (quality of life for her, and my family going forward if we had to go without necessities)

I'm going to review my home policy to see if I have any coverage...Thanks all for your input, didn't mean to start arguments on the Internets!

[Sliver]

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

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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

Which comes as a shock and surprise to a grand total of absolutely no one.

[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.