Po Monkey Lounger wrote:From a legal civil tort liability standpoint, the dog owner is liable for the death of this child. Period.
A pit bull, unlike some other breeds of dogs, is presumed to be "viscious" (it does not have to first bite someone in order to thereafter be presumed viscious). And there is "strict liability" for the owner of a viscious dog. While a trespass situation might ordinarily nullify such strict liability, in this case the victim was a 3 year old. A 3 year old cannot commit trespass, as such a young child is not old enough to form the requisite intent to commit trespass. Nor can the child be considered "negligent", as a child that young legally cannot be negligent.
However, it is highly doubtful that a "crime" was committed by the dog owner with respect to the death of the child, other than perhaps the crime of owning and keeping such an animal within the city limits (per the city ordinance posted above). Whatever the fine and penalties are for a breach of this ordinance would be the extent of the criminal punishment.
But, there very well could have been a "crime" committed by the parent of the child ---eg. child endangerment etc. This is similar to circumstances when a young child is left unattended and injures himself in an accident ---eg fire, fall, etc. Most often, the parent is prosecuted for some type of child endangerment crime.
If you are the owner of a pit bull, you need to understand that you WILL have civil tort liability in the event that dog bites or otherwise harms someone. Only in a criminal trespass situation by an adult would this strict liability perhaps be nullified. You generally own such an animal at your own risk.
And if one ever ventures into my yard, it will be shot and killed --- with no hesitation.
As stated the dog under law does not have to be euphanized due to the fact it has never shown aggresion before and was CHAINED. Will it be euphanized.... YES. The owner doesn't want it back
due to all neg press etc he has received and will receive if he doesn't.
As for "visious" breeds... is this not some form of discrimination to an extent???? Pits get the attention due to most were used for fighting as they are strong and built very well for such a "game". If labs were built that way they could be the same as are Rotts, German Sheps, Dobermans, Chows, Presa Canerios, American Bulldogs.... list could go on and on. If someone started a fight ring with one of those breeds the same backlash would proceed but its like any sport.... Micheal Jordan was built to play basketball and proof was made when he tried baseball.
Msduckmen I saw the clips and those could be from ANY breed thing is PITS get the coverage due to BAD rap due to the VICS etc that ONLY used them for FIGHTING. I have had dogs and know many others that had dogs that were food aggresive or house protective or protective of their toys etc. If a child tried to invade their space they would be bitten. Case in point my best friend has a child thats 5 and is used to his lab and being able to jump on him and grab his ears etc. Well he tried this with MAMAWS Golden that he has played with since birth and he almost ripped his face off. Plastics had to do surgery and he will still bear scars. Was the dog put down??? NO.
I have to privalege if you wanna call it that to see numerous dog bites EVERY YEAR and to most surprise most are LABRADOR RETRIEVERS. Next would be Chows and next ankle biters. Last on the list would be a Pitt. Only seen 1 in 11 years and he was breaking up a fight between 2 of em.
I could fill you tube up with grapfic photos of kids with faces messed up from "family pets" gone bad but due to HIPPA I can't. They get no attention cause they are "sweet" dogs.
