View Single Post
Old 01-27-2011, 01:39 PM   #21
Attarderb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
496
Senior Member
Default
I took the question to not mean responsibility ending at covering costs, but owners being charged with aggrivated assault or grevous bodily harm or something if their dog were to attack someone else. Unless there were mitigating circumstances then I say go for it. Treat the actions of the dog as if they were the actions of the owner. It won't hurt those who are responsible enough to safely own a dog.
If an attack warrents it,yes.I find the owner legally responsible.I am NOT including breaking up a dog fight and getting bit,nor bites from a dog protecting it's home during a home invasion.I am speaking of an attack with INTENT to harm someone when the attack is due to true owner negligence.Examples are: at large dog who attacks humans or animals or in the case of a child being left unsupervised resulting in an attack,not obeying leash laws and a resulting attack,encouraging the dog to attack, dog running loose by fault of insecure/inadiquate confinement, etc.
Attarderb is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity