dog-bite -- more lawyers --

[Jman]

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.

It has to do with reasonable expectations (remember, juries actually get to make the decision). If the parent and child have never been bitten, don't know anyone who has been bitten, then their reasonable expectation is that the situation is safe. Jumping out the window or purposely injuring yourself won't make it over that hurdle.

Parents leave their children unattended on private property all the time--theme parks, UpChuck-E-Cheese, bowling alleys, and that isn't negligence and child endangerment.

No, we wouldn't be having this dicussion if it were in the street, because private property owners are held to a higher standard.

Go back to my example of the party--should the person holding the party be held partially liable? You may not like it, but that's the law.

 

[LongIsland60]

Sorry. Got all worked up.

 

[LongIsland60]

No, we wouldn't be having this dicussion if it were in the street, because private property owners are held to a higher standard.

Ah - I never knew that. Thanks. I just thought it was the evil lawyers trying to make money.

So the nect time I get hit by a car on a bike I should make sure it is in a parking lot or other private property - not on a public street. Then I can really clean up.

 

[Jman]

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.

Missed this while I was pontificating!

If I were to assign blame? The parent is, I dunno, 45% responsible, handler is 45% responsible, dog owner is 5% responsible, Petco is 5% responsible. Or something like that. But Petco will be slammed.

 

[Atticus]

But Petco will be slammed.

Don't forget joint and several liability, Jman! Petco will write a nice fat check for this one.

[Edit] Changed "severable" to several. Working on too many things at once...

 

[Jman]

Ah - I never knew that. Thanks. I just thought it was the evil lawyers trying to make money.

So the nect time I get hit by a car on a bike I should make sure it is in a parking lot or other private property - not on a public street. Then I can really clean up.

Yup. Public places, all public laws apply. Private places can be exempt from certain laws (you can drive an uninsured vehicle on private property, for example). If you want private property owners to be immune from those lawsuits, they'd need to have all public laws apply to their property. You want that?

 

[bigndn]

I recall reading a news story about some asshat who got drunk, wandered into a construction area past numerous "No Trespassing" and "Danger" signs, climbed not 1 but 2 high fences, and managed to get himself electrocuted. His family sued the construction company and won. The judge or jury said the construction company had failed to take enough steps to prevent entry into a known hazardous environment.

Pretty much after that I just figured anything goes, regardless of how stupid it may seem.

 

[LongIsland60]

Missed this while I was pontificating!

You missed my lawyer jokes then too...

 

[Jman]

You missed my lawyer jokes then too...

No, didn't miss them at all.

 

[erics_bruisers]

i want to hear your punch-lines, LI!

 

[erics_bruisers]

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.

I was going by NY law, where there has to be a propensity to bite in the dog, and that's shown by a person in the store knowing of a past bite in the dog.

And I think the assumption of risk part is good as well, as is the parents' negligence --

eric

 

[Jman]

not enough
he's breathing
don't know
pricks are on the inside with the car full of lawyers

 

[LongIsland60]

i want to hear your punch-lines, LI!

Ok, but you axed for it...

in order I think:

a good start
the cats keep trying to bury them (you need to know cats to understand this - they bury their poopoo in the sand sometimes)
his lips are moving
the pocupine has the pricks on the outside

 

[erics_bruisers]

JMan, are you screwing a lawyer on the side?

or is she screwing you?

you're quite the LA-lawyer --



e

 

[BOUNDER]

There are so many reasons these pet stores shouldn't allow people to take their dogs inside and this is right up there with disease transmission in unvaccinated puppies/younger dogs; such as parvo, distemper, corona, etc.

I am totally opposed to people taking any dog into a store such as petco or pet smart.

I don't care how friendly you dog is to you, you can never be sure what it might do to others if it is annoyed. Our Lab would take a bullet for any of my family, but I don't trust him around small children or even adults he doesn't know for even just a second.

I appreciate your concern and overall agree but I remain absolutely confident in my Labs ability to be around anyone - ESPECIALLY small children whom she truly loves and responds well too. Here's the difference: I have never played very rough with her and that alone is so important in a dogs training. That said, Sydney has been tranied & socialized in public - classes and otherwise - almost since birth. And I have trained her to walk off-leash and obey vocal commands - people are amazed. She has also come on vacation with us - Marriott hotels to be specific. Sure, perhaps a bark or woof here and there but all good otherwise. The ONLY time the hair on her back will stand is when an adult male acts funny around here - standing perfectly still and staring at her is a good example. I doubt she would bite even in this example but a low growl would certainly be evident. I'm not a dog trainer but just someone who put in the time needed to get the results I wanted - period. Aniamls are smart - we all know that. And so you know,, I work with lawyers all day and know many are gunning for animal bites suchs as this - it's practically a campaign for personal injury lawyers. Do a Google search in your area and see for yourself: animal bites attorney New York or dog lawyer Los Angeles...

 

[LongIsland60]

http://www.ahajokes.com/law001.html

 

[Jman]

JMan, are you screwing a lawyer on the side?

or is she screwing you?

you're quite the LA-lawyer --



e

Nope, but I play one on TV.

 

[Atticus]

I was going by NY law, where there has to be a propensity to bite in the dog, and that's shown by a person in the store knowing of a past bite in the dog.

And I think the assumption of risk part is good as well, as is the parents' negligence --

eric

Don't know NY law, so I'll stick to hornbook. Feel free to correct me if you disagree:

1. assumption of the risk: children cannot assume the risk. Her mom can be negligent, but in a comparative negligence scheme, they can still get money. Not sure if NY requires that the plaintiff be less than half responsible to recover.

2. propensity of the dog to bite: I'm thinking this only applies to the negligence of the owner. If Petco doesn't know about the dog's propensity to bite (or lack thereof), then it would be negligent (as opposed to reckless if they did have knowledge of such a propensity) to set up a system where children come into contact with animals.

Not an air-tight case, but I don't think you can "summary judgment" this one away on the law.

So, what am I missing; what did I screw up here?

 

[erics_bruisers]

Don't know NY law, so I'll stick to hornbook. Feel free to correct me if you disagree:

1. assumption of the risk: children cannot assume the risk. Her mom can be negligent, but in a comparative negligence scheme, they can still get money. Not sure if NY requires that the plaintiff be less than half responsible to recover.

2. propensity of the dog to bite: I'm thinking this only applies to the negligence of the owner. If Petco doesn't know about the dog's propensity to bite (or lack thereof), then it would be negligent (as opposed to reckless if they did have knowledge of such a propensity) to set up a system where children come into contact with animals.

Not an air-tight case, but I don't think you can "summary judgment" this one away on the law.

So, what am I missing; what did I screw up here?

No, I agree with what your saying -- and I am not really against attorneys using the system that exists, it's just that I think there should be massive tort reform, or comparative negligence or something set up so society doesn't slowly get monitored and ground to a halt from these sorts of ills --

-- who knows, maybe they'll find the mother mostly at fault, and the store 2% --

-- it's just sad that it happened --

Definition time -- from the web --

Comparative negligence comes into play when it is contended that two or more parties failed to perform at the standard of the "ordinary reasonable person". For example, suppose one person was driving too fast in a patch of dense fog on the highway and hit a car -- but the car that was hit did not have its lights on as it should have.

In a situation where each party has some degree of negligence in causing an accident, the responsibility to the other person(s) is reduced by the others' degree of negligence. For example suppose a jury decides that the driver going too fast in the fog was 60% responsible for the accident, while the driver without vehicle lights on is 40% responsible. If the driver who didn't have his lights on would have recovered $10,000, his recovery would be reduced to $6,000 because of his 40% contributory negligence. Whether the speeding driver would recover anything will depend on state law -- in some states the driver who bears over 50% of the responsibility would recover nothing, not the 40% of his damages.

 

[Atticus]

that's why I love contributory negligence. You do something to contribute to your injury, you get zippo. Sorry.