Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Angry_White_Man_Syndrome

I don’t know, do you consider a dog, known to bite being tied up, where a child can wander close enough to get within biting range to be sufficiently confined? If so I would like to suggest that you might consider not getting a dog, or if you do, get advice from other people before you decide how to keep it. Also, you might get advice from people about children and the likelihood of their always following advice. And you might also keep a lawyer on retainer.
A small pen? No. 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.


25 posted on 05/21/2010 5:29:31 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: brytlea

What should we do with the children’s parents? They obviously did not take precautions to ensure the safety of the child.


41 posted on 05/21/2010 6:14:21 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: brytlea

‘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]


65 posted on 05/22/2010 1:54:17 AM PDT by Salamander (You don't know what's going on inside of me. You don't wanna know what's running through my mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson