Who's at fault?

[Miakoda]

Fact: The parish, where the event occured, has a long-standing leash ordinance that states one must have animals restrained/contained at all times be it by leash, tie-out, fence, or inside the home; at no time can the dog be free of physcial restraint/containment.

Event: Dog A was loose in its own front yard when Dog B, a neighboring dog, wandered over. Dog B attacked Dog A, which happened to be a much smaller dog, and Dog A died from its injuries.

Result: Dog B's owner has since had his dogs confiscated by the local A.C., has been fined, has been the subject of a "news investigation", and has now been suspended from his job, which is that of a city police officer.








My opinion:

Dog B's owner should indeed have paid a hefty monetary fine for his violating the local leash ordinance. Since the dogs were out loose on more than one occasion, I have no problem with him being forced to turn the dogs over.

However, Dog A's owner should have also been forced to pay a hefty monetary fine for her violation of the local leash ordinance. And IMO, she has no claim to financial reimbursement to cover he dog's veterinary bills (although there has not even been any evidence put forth that shows she brought the dog to a veterinarian. in that case, an animal cruelty charge should go with the leash ordinance fine.).

And I have an issue with me being told there is nothing to be done about my neighbors dogs since they are not able to catch them out loose by the time they arrive (the dogs are loose outside when the owners are piddling about outside, but the owners don't give 2 you-know-whats about where the dogs go), however, they confiscated Dog B and another dog straight from the backyard. Neither dog was found roaming loose by the actual A.C. officer. So....A.C. has no issues confiscating these two dogs based on heresay, while I have photographic and video proof, and I''m still told nothing can done.

[sillysally]

If a dog comes onto the property of someone else and attacks the property owners dog, the owner of the trespassing dog is absolutely and fault and should absolutely have to pay for any damages. If the property owners dog had been tied out the attack still would have occurred because the other owners dog would have still come onto the property.

That would be like if you were smoking pot in your front yard and I walked onto your property and beat you senseless. I should still be liable for your medical bills regardless of the fact you were breaking the law at the time.

[~Jessie~]

Originally Posted by sillysally

If a dog comes onto the property of someone else and attacks the property owners dog, the owner of the trespassing dog is absolutely and fault and should absolutely have to pay for any damages. If the property owners dog had been tied out the attack still would have occurred because the other owners dog would have still come onto the property.

That would be like if you were smoking pot in your front yard and I walked onto your property and beat you senseless. I should still be liable for your medical bills regardless of the fact you were breaking the law at the time.

This sums up my answer as well.

[Sweet72947]

You're right Miakoda, its not fair that you can't get AC to do anything about the loose dogs in your neighborhood. But I think its also not fair that in your neck of the USA a dog can't enjoy time in its own front yard without being in violation of the law. Like SillySally said, if the dog had been tied out, he still would have been attacked. If dog A had been behind a fence, Dog B could have jumped it. Dog B's owner is the one at fault. If a dog is just enjoying time in its own yard and not bothering anybody, I'm not going to worry about it. Prince William County has a similar law to yours, but people still let their dogs loose in their own yards, and most dogs are well-behaved and stay where they are supposed to. Fauquier County doesn't have a leash law, it has a "dog running at large" law which basically says your dog needs to be under your control at all times. Neither county has a huge issue with loose dogs.

[Paige]

Originally Posted by sillysally

If a dog comes onto the property of someone else and attacks the property owners dog, the owner of the trespassing dog is absolutely and fault and should absolutely have to pay for any damages. If the property owners dog had been tied out the attack still would have occurred because the other owners dog would have still come onto the property.

That would be like if you were smoking pot in your front yard and I walked onto your property and beat you senseless. I should still be liable for your medical bills regardless of the fact you were breaking the law at the time.

I'm with this as well. Even if dog A's owner was breaking the law it does not justify being attacked and killed by someone else's dog while on it's own property.


And why can't a dog be on it's own unfenced lawn unleashed? That's strange.

[Miakoda]

But Dog A wanders as well, and the attack occurred close to the road.

I do agree with y'all, but I also still have to disagree. If two unlicensed drivers drive around anyway, and one rearends the other, the offender would be guilty of the causing the wreck, but neither should've been on the roadway anyway. IMO, both should be at fault and responsible for their own damages.

[~Jessie~]

Originally Posted by Miakoda

But Dog A wanders as well, and the attack occurred close to the road.

I do agree with y'all, but I also still have to disagree. If two unlicensed drivers drive around anyway, and one rearends the other, the offender would be guilty of the causing the wreck, but neither should've been on the roadway anyway. IMO, both should be at fault and responsible for their own damages.

Actually, it's more like an uninsured driver hitting an uninsured car parked in its own driveway. Sure, both cars SHOULD be insured in an ideal world... but if you're assigning fault, it definitely would be the one coming into the other one's property.

If the dog was attacked and killed while loose in its own yard, then it would've been attacked and killed even if it were on a tie out... and possibly even if it were fenced in.

Even if dog A roams, it doesn't matter in this situation. He was attacked in his own yard, so saying that he roams is a moot point in this situation.

[Paige]

If the dog wandered it's entirely different. If Bandit was on my lawn and got attacked, regardless of if he was restrained or not I'd want that person to pay for his bills as they are trespassing onto property that my dog belongs on. Not theirs. However, if my dog wandered we are both at fault for not containing our animals.

[Emily]

Originally Posted by Miakoda

But Dog A wanders as well, and the attack occurred close to the road.

But as far I can tell from the information on the OP, Dog A wasn't wandering when it was attacked. "Close" to the roadway can still be on the owner's property...

I dunno, nothing that Dog A has done in the past will make it even partially responsible for being attacked while on its owners property to me.

[release the hounds]

i don't care about the details, if you or an animal is attacked on your property it's on the other dog. I can't think of a scenerio that would make me change my mind at this point.

I can't imagine the level of suck there must be living in an area that turns people chillin with their dog in their own yard into criminals.