dog-bite -- more lawyers --

[erics_bruisers]

guilt by association

haha -- outside it's america...

... while the japanese build better cars, the germans better washers, we just sit around and sue the crap of each other --

-- do we deserve to survive with this model?

-- will we?

I think not.

 

[lingo]

haha -- outside it's america...

Most people dont' get that song.

 

[Jman]

Petco not negligent?

Are you asking what's right, or are you asking what the law is?

The parent and the dog handler are to blame for this, but Petco has created a liability by fostering the environment. It's a private space. If it were a restaurant that allowed dogs, and you went there to eat and got bit, who is responsible? Well, you just went there to eat, and wound up injured.

Is it right? Well, in this case they're not the cause of the girl's grief. But are they liable? Uh, yeah.

 

[erics_bruisers]

Petco not negligent?

Are you asking what's right, or are you asking what the law is?

The parent and the dog handler are to blame for this, but Petco has created a liability by fostering the environment. It's a private space. If it were a restaurant that allowed dogs, and you went there to eat and got bit, who is responsible? Well, you just went there to eat, and wound up injured.

Is it right? Well, in this case they're not the cause of the girl's grief. But are they liable? Uh, yeah.

but petco was not aware of the pet's propensity to bite, and the adult assumed the risk of a biting dog by taking the child to the store, and petco took reasonable measures in preventing loose dogs, by requiring leashing.

 

[brett76]

i got bit by dogs when i was a kid and i absolutely love them. you see it was explained to me afterwords that your not supposed to make aggressive movements toward animals you dont know. also i never pet someones dog without their permission if they are around, or letting the dog smell me for as long as it wants first

 

[Atticus]

but petco was not aware of the pet's propensity to bite, and the adult assumed the risk of a biting dog by taking the child to the store, and petco took reasonable measures in preventing loose dogs, by requiring leashing.

Eric, aren't you a lawyer by training? I may be mistaken in that, but always thought of you as one. This is a lay-up. Most stores don't allow animals. Petco does. That obviously creates a situation where an animal can bite a child, regardless of anything else that's going on. They may not have a lot of liability, but it's there, and it's not exactly latent.

Of course, in Alabama, the family would get nothing, because we still have (I believe we're the only state) contributory negligence, where the negligence of the mother in allowing her daughter to play with the dog will temporarily unsupervised, no matter how slight, means no recovery.

 

[LongIsland60]

So by your guyses' logic (the ones who say petco has fault) if I get bit on a street (my town allows doggies on the street on leashes) I can sue not only the owner of the dog, but the town as well? (since they created an environment where dogs can interact with other people) (Of course I can sue them - but in this sense I mean sue and have a case and they have liability)

We also have dog park areas - town and county - you're telling me that the town and county are responsible for all the dogses' behaviors'?

I don't think that will fly - not even in NY (this incident happened near where I live) Same deal as petco - so you tell me how that logic works out.

Unfortunately I suspect petco will end up paying, but I hate the thought of it.

Idiot parent.

 

[lingo]

LI60, the difference would be public street and private business

 

[LongIsland60]

LI60, the difference would be public street and private business

So what.

Let's say a housing co-op that owned the parking lot allowed dogs on leashes. Is the co-op responsible?

I belong to an association with a private road. Same question. They allow dogs, but on leashes. Is the road association responsible?

So, for some reason - you are saying the rules are DIFFERENT because of the venue. At what point (what line) does petco become responsible, but not a gubment agency? Let's say the incident occurred in the doorway of the store? what then? just inside the threshold? Just outside the threshold? On the sidewalk next to the store? In the parking lot of the store? Is the landlord of the building (let's say it isn't petco's building) responsible?

So, in some cases the owner of the dog is responsible, but sometimes, because there is money to be had, the "owner" of the space is responsible? And the parent has NO responsibility?

I would press charges against the parent for negligence and child endangerment if I had the authority and they tried to blame someone else and make that entity pay.

So what happens if a child hurts themselves in the store on something that was brought in with the child? The store is private space - they allowed outside <item>. Is it the store's fault?

where does this nonsense end?

 

[Jman]

If it were one of Petco's dogs for sale, they'd be 100% liable. Because it wasn't their dog, they're not 100% liable, but they are liable. It doesn't sound right--it's like the hot coffee thing, although not as bad. Someone ordering hot coffee has to have a reasonable expectation that the coffee is hot and will burn. Someone walking into a private store to buy goldfish (or whatever) doesn't have to have a reaonable expectation that the store will have biting dogs in it. Private property owners are liable if their environments aren't safe.

That said, I think the parent and the dog handler are mostly at fault, but that doesn't innoculate Petco from a lawsuit.

 

[e9999]

I have told my kids many times *never* to pet a dog they don't know very very well.

 

[Jman]

So what.

Let's say a housing co-op that owned the parking lot allowed dogs on leashes. Is the co-op responsible?

I belong to an association with a private road. Same question. They allow dogs, but on leashes. Is the road association responsible?

You are confusing responsible with liable.

If the person bit is visiting the private property legally (not as an intruder), yes, the property owner might be liable. If you are having a party in your house, and someone brings a dog, and someone brings a kid, and the kid gets bitten, you better have insurance.

Not saying it's the way it should be--dog handlers and parents should take precautions--but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[CSA]

A property owner is generally liable for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition the property owner permits to exist on his, her, or its property. The presence of pit pulls, rotts, and other vicious breeds is a dangerous condition, period.

 

[LongIsland60]

If it were one of Petco's dogs for sale, they'd be 100% liable. Because it wasn't their dog, they're not 100% liable, but they are liable. It doesn't sound right--it's like the hot coffee thing, although not as bad. Someone ordering hot coffee has to have a reasonable expectation that the coffee is hot and will burn. Someone walking into a private store to buy goldfish (or whatever) doesn't have to have a reaonable expectation that the store will have biting dogs in it. Private property owners are liable if their environments aren't safe.

That said, I think the parent and the dog handler are mostly at fault, but that doesn't innoculate Petco from a lawsuit.

Ah, but many workplaces are not safe - so you are saying my employer is liable if I break the glass and jump out the window? Or I purposely stick my hand in a vise and tighten it? No one else in the store got bit. The parent left the kid unattended. In ANY OTHER VENUE that is negligence and child endangerment. We wouldn't be having this conversation if this were just an incident on the street.

 

[LongIsland60]

So if there are no "no trespassing" signs on private property and a rottie owner and his dog stroll around, and a kid and his idiot parent wander in the same area, and the kid gets bit you are saying the property owner is liable?

This country sucks worser than I thought.

 

[brett76]

So if there are no "no trespassing" signs on private property and a rottie owner and his dog stroll around, and a kid and his idiot parent wander in the same area, and the kid gets bit you are saying the property owner is liable?

This country sucks worser than I thought.

attorneys have told me that your liable if someone walking down the side walk trips and falls onto your parked car and gets hurt. dont know if its true. one told me and i asked another, because the one told me

 

[LongIsland60]

<snip>

Not saying it's the way it should be--dog handlers and parents should take precautions--but we don't live in an ideal world.

I think that is all I (and Eric) is/are saying.

Flippin' lawyers.

The new American dream - it isn't working hard and making it big. It isn't the lottery...

it's

Get hurt on someone else's property and sue for tons of money due to your own negligence/stupidity.

I give up. I try to hard to be rational about these things.

 

[LongIsland60]

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

 

[LongIsland60]

Why don't lawyers go to the beach?

 

[LongIsland60]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

What's the difference between a porcupine and a car full of lawyers?