A new ruling makes it easier for anyone attacked by a pit bull or pit bull mix in Maryland to take legal action against the dog's owner.Read the rest here.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruling declares pit bulls as a breed are "inherently dangerous," and the owner of a pit bull or a cross-bred pit that attacks is strictly liable for damages, as is any landlord who rents to a pit bull owner.
A rare victory for common sense in the courts.
9 comments:
"Now the law finds pit bull owners throughout Maryland absolutely accountable for the behavior of their dogs."
Shouldn't owners of any breed of dog be absolutely accountable for the behavior of their dogs?
Good point...
English and American common law held that owners should be strictly liable only for animals inherently dangerous (i.e., that Bengal tiger you keep in your back yard).
Otherwise, the ordinary tort standard of negligence applies, where you are only responsible for foreseeable harm to others. Since dogs are ordinarily friendly little cusses, we aren't on notice that a particular dog might bite someone until he breaks down and does it. Hence the maxim, "Every dog gets one bite." Except, apparently, pit bulls in Maryland.
ALL pit bulls? My best friend owns a pit bull who is the sweetest dog you could ever meet. She wouldn't hurt a fly. Isn't this a rather sweeping condemnation of an entire breed?
Inevitably, somebody knows somebody who has a pit bull that's "the sweetest dog you could ever meet." Analog: "My grandfather's uncle smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be a hundred."
The problem is the statistical tendency within the breed. It is more likely than not that a pit bull will attack somebody and inflict serious injury, and yes, the statistics really are awful for this breed. Therefore, the risk-spreading via liability and medical insurance (whether public or private) is cheaper if, as the court did here, we just declare pit bulls uninsurable.
Statistical tendency and categories of risk--people seem to have the hardest time with these concepts.
Anti-Gnostic, I have a really difficult time with the snideness that seems endemic in comboxes. You're supposed to be Orthodox, aren't you? Wouldn't that suggest that you know something about charity? Do you think you might be able to disagree with someone without sneering at them? Is that too much to ask of a grown man and a Christian? This is the second time in as many days that I've simply expressed an opinion in a combox and been insulted. What the hell is the matter with you people? Do you switch off your consciences when you go online?
All,
Please be courteous when commenting and in particular refrain from ad hominem attacks. Snark does not reinforce whatever point your trying to make. And personal attacks are a no no here.
XB
John
Tawser:
Uh, where exactly did you read an insult?
I give up. From now on I'm just going to read the posts and stay out of the comboxes. It's much safer that way.
Post a Comment