cloudboy
Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
And those that believe "they are inherently dangerous" are complete fucking idiots -- and likely have never owned, or even been around a Pit Bull for any length of time.
When a court says something is "inherently dangerous" it just means that the owner is more easily liable for damages if something goes wrong. In the case of Pit Bulls, this means that a bite victim won't have to prove that the individual dog was "dangerous" to recover damages from the owner.
Many states have a "one bite rule." In such jurisdictions a dog could maul someone badly in an attack, but if there was no record on file that the dog had ever attacked anyone before, the owner would not be liable for damages. The MD court has stricken this defense and requirement (to prove the individual dog is dangerous) with Pit Bulls, thereby making a Pit Bull owner strictly liable to anyone bitten by his dog.
This shifts the burden of safety for the rearing of Pit Bulls more squarely on the owner.
The facts of the case were pretty disturbing:
The present case involves an attack by a pit bull named Clifford. Notwithstanding his relatively benign name, Clifford possessed the aggressive and vicious characteristics of both Trouble and Rampage. He escaped twice from an obviously inadequate small pen and attacked at least two boys at different times on the same day. The second young boy was Dominic Solesky. As a result of his mauling by Clifford, Dominic initially sustained life threatening injuries and underwent five hours of surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital to address his injuries, including surgery to repair his femoral artery. He spent seventeen days in the hospital, during which time he underwent additional surgeries, and then spent a year in rehabilitation. Here, the trial court granted a judgment for the defendant landlord at the close of the Plaintiff’s case on the grounds that, according to the trial judge, the evidence was insufficient to permit the issue of common law negligence to be presented to the jury.
Most landlords have express language in their leases about what pets are permitted on their properties. Now landlords will not likely rent apartments to Pit Bull owners.
< Message edited by cloudboy -- 4/28/2012 9:12:45 PM >
|
RE: MD Court of Appeals: Pitbulls Inherently Dangerous - 
That's true me too, I am more concerned about what we put into our bodies, then the couple of crazy dogowners. It's never the dogs fault so banning breeds is useless. In my experience its always those annoying little mutts that start biting first cause theyre scared. 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread