I lean a bit more to Julie's side in terms of whether animals lack rights, etc. Look at the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
This is an unequivocal statement that rights are imbued in men from God; they are not granted by the government. The government derives its powers from the people, not vice versa.
Also, take a look at the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Again, our current constitution (I say "current" because this one replaced a previous one) was created in part "to secure" rights, not create them. I suppose we can have a philosophical and religious debate over whether animals similarly were created with rights by God, but it is not correct to state that individuals have rights because laws create them, at least not in terms of U.S. jurisprudence.
That all being said, this isn't about whether dog rights trump children's rights. It's about whether my rights must yield to the rights of others, including children, and under what circumstances, and to what extent must anyone be held responsible for their own decisions.
Frankly, I am selfish, and want my rights to rule over yours. (I suspect that most people are the same way, whether they admit it or not; I am just honest about it.) Consequently, I want to take my dog where ever I want to, and I don't want to be bothered by other people's children, dirty, clean, or otherwise. I guess its fortunate that I don't get to be the ultimate arbiter of whose rights should prevail. Instead, I have to try to pursuade others to agree with me.
At least on this board, there seems to be a consensus that I should be permitted to take a well adjusted dog with a very kind dispisition out in public. Unfortunately, the realistic truth is that just like with children, not every dog is well mannered, and too many parents of both dogs and children do not do a good job of training and don't have the sense to recognize their own failure. Consequently it is a sad fact that children and dogs alike are sometimes not permitted everywhere we would like to take them.
As a matter of policy, I would hope that the action against Petco is not successful. There are simply not that many places where my dog is permitted to go,a nd I would hate to see one of them disapear. I think, as a matter of law, it is not unreasonable (sorry about the double negative) for Petco to permit dog owners to bring their dogs in. Every reasonable person knows this is permitted. The injured person saw the dog, and thus knew of its presense. Thus, there is some assumption of risk on her part, and on her parents part. In addition, the benefits of this policy vastly outweigh the negatives. Think of all the enjoyment people (and many animals) get out of bringing their pets in compared to the number of incidents that occur.
Now, the owner of the dog that bit this girl is a different situation. We have no information about whether this dog had given prior warning signs of aggresion. If so, the risk of this loss should fall, at least in part on the dog owner.
