Posted on 05/21/2010 4:46:38 PM PDT by solosmoke
GIRARD - The owner of the dog whose bite left a 12-year-old with more than 100 stitches is sorry the girl was injured but says she was not bitten while walking past the 15-month chocolate Labrador as she claims, rather because she was too close to it.
"Destiny (Turner) walked over to Schnook and put her face next to the dog's face," Christina Morris said Thursday. "That's when he bit her face."
The girl claims she was walking toward her house, 211 Broadview, about 7 p.m. Sunday when the chained dog leaped on top of her and began biting her face.
Morris says she has told Destiny and other kids in the neighborhood on numerous occasions not to go too near to the dog, which she said was chained to a tree in the rear of the house Sunday.
Morris said she has owned Schnook for five to six months and that he listens to commands.
"He is basically a good dog," she said. "Yes, he can be aggressive at times. Kids in the neighborhood throw rocks at him at times. I think something may have happened at the prior owner's home." Schnook, meanwhile, has been kept at the home of Nick Spelich, 622 Johnson Plank Road, Bazetta. Spelich is Morris' sister's boyfriend.
(Excerpt) Read more at tribtoday.com ...
tomasco55?
Haven’t heard a peep out of him since.
[I think he choked on crow]
Not to be pointed, but if the dog was chained in *his* back yard, how did the girl get mauled if she was not walking within the radius of the chain?
Did the dog have a very long chain which extended off its property and out into the street or something?
Depends on whether it can proved the that the girl was *on* his property and willfully went close enough to the -chained- dog.
I hate chains on dogs but the guy *was* confining the dog according to applicable laws.
Same as with a fence.
The fence is *obviously* there to either keep something in *or* keep something out...and to keep the two things from encountering each other.
Walking into a fenced yard with a dog inside and getting bit is considered “your own damn stupidity” here.
It’s usually in the face because kids do not understand the “direct eye contact” taboo *and* naturally want to hug dogs.
To the average dog, a “hug” is a ~very~ serious, overt dominance maneuver and they do not like it.
*Most* dogs let their humans hug them because they have grown to understand that it is not our intent to aggressively [perhaps dangerously] “dominate” them as a stranger or other dog might and because they have learned to tolerate our ignorance of “dog speak”.
Kids should be taught by their parents what [and what not to do] around -all- dogs.
Unfortunately, a lot of parents either don’t know ‘the rules of ‘dog speak’.
One of my rescue Dobes was tormented by kids throwing rocks and sticks.
They thought it was “funny” to watch him get wound up and run impotently up and down the fence line.
[he was “deprogrammed” and became a fine dog]
I also had a horse that kids threw rocks at because she would flag her tail and “gallop beautifully” to avoid their projectiles.
She never quite got over it and was always flight and jumpy if somebody moved their arms in such a way that she thought they were going to throw something.
‘A properly fenced yard would work, however keeping the dog inside the house would be ideal. Chained dogs are MUCH more likely to bite, by the way. Bear in mind that the owner KNEW THE DOG WAS PRONE TO BITE”
Some communities do not allow “unsightly fences”, hence we have the disaster prone “invisible fence” market.
The sign is a double-edged sword.
Legally, if you “advertise” that you have an aggressive dog, you *could* be nailed for “knowing” and not having it locked up somewhere instead of being allowed to “roam free” within its fenced area.
If you *don’t* have a sign, they can still nail you for “negligence” because you didn’t “warn” people even if you didn’t “know”.
[this is from a lawyer friend]
So, I just put up a sign that simply has a picture of a Doberman and the words “In Yard”.
It fulfills the “warning” loophole without implying that my dog is “vicious”.
[and makes them aware that they should *please* shut the gate securely when leaving so my dogs don’t get out and get hurt]
It’s just a statement of fact and the observer is the one who makes the choice to enter uninvited...or not.
[and then I only allow my dogs to run in the back yard anyway, separate from the front where people come in]
“Regular visitors” such as UPS, FedEx and the mail carrier know that the dogs are definitely -not- in the yard they enter.
Bottom line is, if somebody comes in your yard and your dog bites them, regardless of “trespass”, if they want to sue, they can try.
Makes no sense but that’s how it is.
[but it didn’t used be....people are increasingly litigation-happy and opportunistic when a “quick buck” situation raises its head...even when they’re clearly in the wrong]
My Dobe just stands at the back door, staring in if I don’t come out and watch him play and go potty.
If I “head fake” him and step out and right back in again, he just freezes where he’s at, watching the door...and waiting.
Normally, this is not a problem.
When it’s pouring rain or sub-zero, it’s not much “fun”....:)
Good synopsis.
We now live in a culture where too few understand liability, let alone accept it.
Nobody’s “responsible”, nobody’s “liable” and it’s *always* the other guy’s fault.
I was raised to accept and suffer the consequences of my own stupid actions.
Nobody bailed me out.
Nobody made excuses.
Nobody sued anybody else when I got hurt doing something I shouldn’t have.
Nobody pitied me for occasionally being an idiot.
When I was a kid, my dad flat out told me that if I ever did something that landed me in jail, to get just comfy because he wasn’t coming to ‘save’ me.
He wasn’t kidding.
That was then; this is now.
Check this one out:
It's *so* Pythonesque....:)
Yup. I’m a baaaaaaaad person. [/s]
Umm..I have an idea..how about not chaining the dog and actually letting him inside their home? Dogs do not want to be chained and it’s proven dogs chained become aggressive. How would you like to be chained to a tree all of your life with kids throwing rocks at you? They are lonely, sad, and just want to be inside the house with their family!
Let's see. Dogs will be dogs, but children will never act like children. Therefore, It's OK to give children easy access to a potential danger in your yard. The jury will laugh you all the way to bankruptcy.
Three of the victim’s dogs have been killed. Interesting that the attacking dog’s breed isn’t even mentioned in this story.
“Turner said the one dog was poisoned and had first thought the other two were hit by cars, but has since been told it appears they may have been beaten.”
Why does it suddenly seem like there’s a lot we’re not being told about the “neighborhood”?
You can’t assume you know the reason the dog had, nor does it matter. Every dog attack is provoked, if you look at it from the dog’s point of view. It isn’t like they’re consciously making an effort to be mean or evil, they are just doing what dogs do. However, that is not a good enough argument for keeping them around when they prove to be dangerous, because a dog that shows it can bite a person will most likely do it again. That is crossing a threshold that most dogs have been bred not to do. Would you want the dog euthanized if it had killed the girl? A bite is what they reported, but you and me both know that a hundred stitches did not come from a single bite. What if it had been a different breed of dog? Would your opinion cover all dogs, even the “bad” breeds?
As for “liability”, I most certainly never had a lawsuit in my mind. What I mean by liability is that the dog is still a danger, not that people might have to lose some money over it. I kind of think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, so I will try to word things a little differently. I have no interests in the legal standpoint, or the inconvenience of having a dangerous dog. Fact is, most people do not have what it takes to keep a human-aggressive dog without incident. It takes a lot of time, energy, and expense in ensuring the dog is unable to access the public, and when doing so, is appropriately restrained.
You cannot predict what children will do in public, and they have a right to play outside without getting mauled. It is up to the owners to prevent these things from happening, but there are many that do not, then they blame the poor dog, (which was only behaving as a dog will) to get out of the mess they have put themselves in. In this case, the child was not trespassing...she was there with the owner of the dog as she often goes there to spend time. She was being an idiotic, irresponsible child, as most are, which she can’t be blamed for (much) because she is a child, and that is why they are under our care for so many years. They simply don’t have what it takes to survive on their own...they need guidance, direction, and supervision so they don’t make stupid decisions. The dog owner is the one at fault, absolutely, because in this situation he/she was both the only adult supervising the child and the dog owner.
The dog is not at fault, and the child is not at fault. But the dog has demonstrated a willingness to bite a human in a situation that can and does present itself often. Children like to be close to animals. They should be taught never to get in the face of a dog or hug a dog, or even look it in the eyes, but the fact is that the child should not have to suffer because either the parents never told them, or they made a childish mistake. Dogs need to be bomb-proof if they are allowed to be around the public. Bites are unacceptable. There are far too many dogs dying in shelters that would never bite a child, even if the child is hugging it, staring into its eyes, and being nose-to-nose. So why save this one dog, that has proven to be unsafe, just because it thought it was justified? It’s a dog, and goes by different rules. What if it felt justified to run out of the house, down the street to someone with a baby and kill it? Would you still want the dog to live?
I like dogs. I have a few of them, and have been working around them for years. I have devoted the better part of my life to rescue, and often use my dogs to educate kids on how to be around dogs. I am very close to getting out of school, and have studied animal behavior as well as sociology for quite some time. Long enough, at least, to think I have a pretty good grasp on the two subjects. I would never wish harm on a dog, even if it had bitten, but I understand that in today’s world, there is almost no alternative. There are far too many dogs like this one, and far too few knowledgeable homes that have an open spot. The odds are simply against the dog, and yes it is the owner’s fault. Which is why I do what I do on a daily basis. The more people realize that their dogs’ lives are truly in their hands, hopefully the more people will do the right thing and ensure their dogs are safe and responsibly owned.
alright Chet!
even I am surprised at this one
Unfortunately, if you have a fence that is not secure, and a child climbs into your yard and drowns in your pool, you are very likely to get sued. Even more so, if you have a yard with a pool and a 1 food fence and a child walks over your fence and drowns in your pool you are likely to get sued. By the same token, if your tied up dog, who is known to bite, bites a child who comes into your yard and gets mauled (not bitten, MAULED), you are going to get sued. You can argue all you want. I am telling you what is likely to happen. So, if you don’t want to get sued, I recommend not tying a dog you know to bite out where a child can get to it. Do you understand? It’s not rocket science.
I suspect state laws differ. People get sued all the time for kids drowning in pools that are not properly fenced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.