Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round

[Julia]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

Well there you go ...

I can't understand why people have pets when they are clearly incapable of looking after them ( if this is the case ) ...

Because, Rapture, to the total disgust of normal people, a lot of dog owners have their dogs just to guard their property. They regard the dogs not as loyal and loving creatures to be cared for, but just as something similar to an inanimate burglar alarm.

All I know about this horrible event is what I've read on this thread. I assumed the puppy was probably being attacked by the older dogs, but realise now there was no real basis for that assumption. So my picture of the woman - in a flurry of concern for the puppy - going into the yard to try to save the pup was probably wrong.

However, although I have to agree that she was foolish to go into the fenced yard, I understand and empathise with her feelings.

And I wouldn't under any circumstances leave my dogs alone for three days, even with food and water. Just take the water in this warm weather - it should be changed twice a day. And what about exercise? Clearly not a consideration for this owner.

Dogs offer us so much love, protection and complete loyalty. We have a responsibility to treat them with love and respect in return.

And just on the cliched notion that particular breeds are killers: rubbish.
Any dog if ill treated and encouraged to violence will do damage.
It's the responsibility of the owner to train the dog to behave appropriately.
If anyone attacked me, my dog would have no hesitation in doing whatever she had to in order to protect me. But in the absence of any threat, she would do no more than warn people to stay outside the gate.

 

[Prospector]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

I'm with prospecter. If I was the owners I would be considering sueing.

Whoa there, I didnt say she should get sued, but think she might be!

Now, my cat has inflicted some pretty nasty injuries on me, including needing some very heavy duty antibiotics. And she is the tiniest thing. And I was also bitten badly on the nose and mouth by a dog when I was 10, because I my cousins and I were teasing it, and as they were the owners, he bit me instead. But there is no way I would have thought of having it destroyed. Still dont like dachsunds to this day though!

 

[hangseng]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

At first one can't help feeling sorry for the woman who jumped the fence and got bitten by the dogs. I almost wrote... feeling sorry for the woman who got attacked by the dogs... but that paints the wrong picture of context for what happened.

I just heard on Ten news that the dogs had been left for three days without food or water. Whether that is completely true has yet to be established because the owners have not yet been contacted. It is probably more factual at this stage to say there is no food or water with the dogs.

Anyway, there may be some good reason why the owners have not been home for three days. In any event three days is not an extraudinary period to leave pets unattended. I've done it and many people I know have left a good supply of feed and water for their pets to go away for two days.

I have been bitten on the footpath by a cattle dog, in true cattle dog style, sneaking up behind without a noise and nipping me in the calf muscle and pestered by a few smaller foxies and the like, so I might be first to condem the dogs, but this is different. The dogs seem to be only doing what they were bred and presumably bought for, to protect the property while the owners were not there.

From what I could see the property had a high metal fence around and good shade, just what you would expect for a dog owner to have to properly house their dogs. I know people who have had their premises burgled frequently and the only thing that stopped the burgleries was guard dogs.

Presumably it was the mother who told the police the owners were away for three days and the dogs hadn't been fed or watered... what on earth were they thinking going over the fence in those circumstances.

Anyone who knows anything about training guard dogs knows that is exactly the sort of behaviour the dogs are trained or bred to attack to. I hope the woman recovers OK, then someone should give her a good lecture about the stupidity of her actions.

I'm with prospecter. If I was the owners I would be considering sueing.

Despite the report these dogs were not purebred Bullmastiffs.

Dog owner laws need to be changed and soon. The dogs are always blamed and yet the owners are the ones that control.

I own two German Shepards that are loyal loving animals that wouldn't harm a fly and yet we understand they are capable of turning to protect what they love most, being us. Far from them being guard dogs (lick you to death more likely) it is us who mostly protect them by doing what needs to be done.

Taking responsibility and having always had our dogs trained (more like us being trained) to assimilate with other dogs and people, be obedient and to respond on command. Our dogs won't even eat unless we give a simple command "OK", other than that they won't touch food. They 'come', 'sit', lie 'down' and 'stay' when we tell them to regardless of situation. Again, despite our ultimate control, we remain wary and ensure control in all situations, why? Because we love them as our own and treat them with respect.

Dog owners are responsible for their dogs actions and should be held accountable accordingly.

Owners are responsible, not the dogs.

 

[Julia]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

Still dont like dachsunds to this day though!

Ah, Prospector, such discerning taste! Perhaps we could despatch your cat to deal with the dachsund population? (Substitute any other breed of small, yapping dog whose owners think it's terribly cute when they snap at the heels of large dogs.)

 

[Whiskers]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

Whoa there, I didnt say she should get sued, but think she might be!

Point taken prospector. I got a bit laxed with my words there.

But I didn't say they 'should be', I said 'consider'... ie assuming there was a reasonable reason behind their absence, and having the dogs. Nothing illegal like a drug factory as sometimes is the case.

 

[Whiskers]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

Well there you go ...

I can't understand why people have pets when they are clearly incapable of looking after them ( if this is the case ) ...

Despite the report these dogs were not purebred Bullmastiffs.

Dog owner laws need to be changed and soon. The dogs are always blamed and yet the owners are the ones that control.


Dog owners are responsible for their dogs actions and should be held accountable accordingly.

Owners are responsible, not the dogs.

The reality is though that many animals are kept for a number of reasons other than for pets. Greyhounds for racing, working dogs on cattle and sheep properties and of course guard dogs.

Without knowing the full story in this case I am loathe to condem the dog owners just yet, because having a guard dog is a ligitimate thing to do just as there are thousands of working cattle and sheep dogs and racing dogs.

Knowing a lot of country people who have working dogs I understand the need to treat working dogs differently to pets. Of course being working or guard dogs doesn't mean they can be abused, but to be effective they have to be lean, fit and trained with a certain amount of controlled agression as opposed to, for want of a better phrase 'dumbing down with affection' for good pets.

As I said earlier, presuming the owners had a legitimate reason for having guard dogs, the dogs should not be put down or condemed for doing their job because of the stupidity of someone trespassing no matter how noble their intentions might have been.

 

[2020hindsight]

Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.

But I didn't say they 'should be', I said 'consider'... ie assuming there was a reasonable reason behind their absence, and having the dogs. Nothing illegal like a drug factory as sometimes is the case.

hi whiskers, an anecdote - we had a neighbour who moved in next door (suburban Sydney), put up a massive high fence, then these two massive german shepherds appeared (well could be heard) over the fence- and a lot of equipment for copying videos was moved in.

I've no idea if it was legal or not ... (as long as he wasn't making blue movies without telling me lol) ... and ...
I'll keep it anonymous - like I won't say if it was the neighbours on the left or right lol - but ... had I concluded it was illegal I think it would have been a not unreasonable conclusion.

Anyway, one summer day they got out, and one of my kids (about 2 or 3 yr old) was sitting out in the yard and eating an icecream - this massive dog starts bearing down on him in a loping run.

The kid isn't frightened at all. No response. - just keeps licking the icecream !

UNTIL, the dog walks straight up and pinches the icecream from his hand lol.
All hell breaks loose as he starts crying (but purely over the theft or rather the termination of his icecream licking, nothing to do with fear lol).

It was really funny at the time, but granted , I guess you had to be there

 

[Mrs Mackie]

Actually, with my limited knowledge of the law I would hazard a guess that it would be the dog owners who should be worried about being sued. Despite the stupidity of the poor woman going into the yard with 3 hungry dogs, everyone has the legal responsibility to ensure that no injury or damage can be caused to their neighbour (meaning anyone they may come into contact with). So by allowing their dogs to attack a person even if in their own yard, they can still be sued for damages although the damages will probably be reduced due to the woman's own actions of entering the yard.

If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.

In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.

You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.

 

[2020hindsight]

If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.

In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.

You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.

interesting points Mrs Mac

and chances are she was bringing them food or water you'd think -

if the good samaritan gets sued (again) it would be a travestry of justice (again)

but the law can be an ass as you say (intention of crime example above).

(PS I might be all for "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but gee whiz, there's no way that robbers should be legally "protected" from dogbite in someone else's yard. - even if they're taking a shortcut to a third party's yard - IMO )

 

[Rapture]

(PS I might be all for "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but gee whiz, there's no way that robbers should be legally "protected" from dogbite in someone else's yard. - even if they're taking a shortcut to a third party's yard - IMO )

OK ... So ... guard dogs are there doing their jobs .. Guarding their owners property and acting as a deteraint for those to enter . But if some idiot still decides to enter , if they are biten they are still protected ?.. and the dogs would still be put down and the owners sued ?

 

[hangseng]

OK ... So ... guard dogs are there doing their jobs .. Guarding their owners property and acting as a deteraint for those to enter . But if some idiot still decides to enter , if they are biten they are still protected ?.. and the dogs would still be put down and the owners sued ?

Yes. the law is an ASS!

 

[Julia]

Actually, with my limited knowledge of the law I would hazard a guess that it would be the dog owners who should be worried about being sued. Despite the stupidity of the poor woman going into the yard with 3 hungry dogs, everyone has the legal responsibility to ensure that no injury or damage can be caused to their neighbour (meaning anyone they may come into contact with). So by allowing their dogs to attack a person even if in their own yard, they can still be sued for damages although the damages will probably be reduced due to the woman's own actions of entering the yard.

If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.

In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.

You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.

That's an interesting view. Do you think that applies to the whole yard or just the fenced area containing the dogs? e.g. the front of my property has no gate and any visitor is freely able to walk up to the front door without any contact with the dog. Given that that should be all any one I don't know needs to do, I can't see any reason for them to then go through the gates to the back of the property which is the dog's territory.

 

[2020hindsight]

OK ... So ... guard dogs are there doing their jobs .. Guarding their owners property and acting as a deteraint for those to enter . But if some idiot still decides to enter , if they are biten they are still protected ?.. and the dogs would still be put down and the owners sued ?

sounds like you're agreeing with me rapture

I said if a robber is bitten, he should not have legal rights to sue the owner.

- Completely different to this case, where the RSPCA had been the day before, left a note, and planned to return to sort it out - if only they had done so before this lady decided she had the courage to intervene to help the dogs ( only to be bitten / mauled / in critical condition etc. Very fortunate to be alive.

Feel free to clarify your comment, but I think we are reading from the same page yes?

 

[2020hindsight]

Just a comment on the legals here...
I'd be interested in a lawyer's opinion ..

Scenario 1:-
robber breaks in,
dog attacks him
can he sue ?(perhaps because a sign wasn't up or some technicality - not that you read signs in the dark )

My own guess is (Were I the judge - lol )
a) YOU - guilty of robbery - 12 months !
b) YOU - guilty of being owner of a dog who attacked someone - put up an iridescent sign - !!! - and don't do it again.

What am I trying ot say here?
Sometimes I think we get carried away with these inconsistencies in the law. The media obviously play them up as well. Hopefully Judges ( Aussie judges anyway - not so sure about the litigious US ones) have more sense.

I mean -
Scenario 2:-
person A goes through a red light
hits
person B who went through a green light

I think I'm correct in saying that BOTH are partly to blame.
just that the split is like 98% - 2% ( if you get my drift).
Obviously the Judge is likely to ignore the one as a misdemeanour - while the other he won’t -
but BOTH are potentially guilty (albeit with mitigating circumstances in one case) .

 

[Whiskers]

Actually, with my limited knowledge of the law I would hazard a guess that it would be the dog owners who should be worried about being sued. Despite the stupidity of the poor woman going into the yard with 3 hungry dogs, everyone has the legal responsibility to ensure that no injury or damage can be caused to their neighbour (meaning anyone they may come into contact with). So by allowing their dogs to attack a person even if in their own yard, they can still be sued for damages although the damages will probably be reduced due to the woman's own actions of entering the yard.

I believe you are generally (loosely) right, Mrs Mackie.

But there are a few qualifications. As I understand the law, anyone has a right to enter your property to meet the owner/occupier, however this is expected to be by the normal front entrance as far as the front door. Where the front gate is locked, that is as far as they are permitted to go. If there is nobody home or they are not welcome and asked to leave they must leave by the same way. An exception is meter readers who must have free access to the meters.

People do not have an unabated right to enter your property without your permission.

If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.

The dangerous dog warning is a local government law which I think still various a bit around the country. As I understand it is an advisory sign for where people may come in contact with your dog while entering your property. If the dogs are secured in a yard by a high fence that is locked, and you trespassed into the back yard by climbing over that fence, it would be nigh on impossible to sue for negligence on the premis that there was no dangerous dog sign.

The law of negligence is a two way street. One has a duty to be responsible for your own actions too... to mitigate any loss, damage or injury.

In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.

There has been some cases where burglers have entered a house and been beaten up by the owner and got compensation. But that was for using 'undue' force to protect his property. In other words it was held that the startled owner should not have beaten the intruder so badly.

I also believe this law is or has been ammended to reflect the notion that your home is your sanctuary and you have the right to protect it as well as yourself. An important aspect of the changes is that a person committing a crime has no recourse against another party protecting themselves or their property.

Some of the rediculious precidents that I think you are referring to are similar to the case of the drunk going for a swim, diving into shallow water and injuring his spine. He won an enormous compensation under common law of negligence but lost it on appeal and I believe there are now statuatory laws to prevent this type of claim.

You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.

In this case, because this womans mother was a neighbour, and I believe the report said the dogs were in the back yard and this woman was in fact trespassing, I think it would be a very difficult to argue ignorance about the dogs demeanour let alone claim any damages for negligence. As I suggested initially, the woman who entered the yard was well aware of the circumstances of the dogs, but chose to do it anyway.

Akin to the drunk diving into shallow water and trying to sue the surf club and the robber claiming unreasonable force to stop him. These loopholes in common law that smart criminal lawyers have used, have or are being closed by statute.

 

[Rapture]

sounds like you're agreeing with me rapture

I said if a robber is bitten, he should not have legal rights to sue the owner.

- Completely different to this case, where the RSPCA had been the day before, left a note, and planned to return to sort it out - if only they had done so before this lady decided she had the courage to intervene to help the dogs ( only to be bitten / mauled / in critical condition etc. Very fortunate to be alive.

Feel free to clarify your comment, but I think we are reading from the same page yes?

Yes , I do agree I don't see why a robber should have any rights when breaking and entering .. They do so at their own risk , so I don't see why there should be any leniancy ...


As to the RSPCA ..... Whether it was knowledge to the woman or not of their visit , I don't know about you , but it seems to me that the dogs were in no mood to play fetch ... Jumping over a fence was not the wises things to do in this situation .. I don't know what I would have done in this instance , I can't say , but jumping the fence wouldn't have been high on the priority ..

 

[Rapture]

Just a comment on the legals here...
I'd be interested in a lawyer's opinion ..

I mean -
Scenario 2:-
person A goes through a red light
hits
person B who went through a green light

I think I'm correct in saying that BOTH are partly to blame.
just that the split is like 98% - 2% ( if you get my drift).
Obviously the Judge is likely to ignore the one as a misdemeanour - while the other he won’t -
but BOTH are potentially guilty (albeit with mitigating circumstances in one case) .

Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying here , but how can they BOTH be blamed when one clearly has the signal to go and the other to stop?

Once again ..I might have not understood your example correctly .. for which I apologise

 

[2020hindsight]

Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying here , but how can they BOTH be blamed when one clearly has the signal to go and the other to stop?

Once again ..I might have not understood your example correctly .. for which I apologise

rapture,
no need for apology lol
just that I was told once that it's illegal to avoid a prang "irrespective"
red light , green light whatever.
Maybe it was BS

obviously a sensible judge would not fine the person who went through the red

 

[Flying Fish]

If you own a dog like that YOU have something to hide.

No excuse for it. You want a dog like that go outback.

 

[Rapture]

I believe you are generally (loosely) right, Mrs Mackie.

But there are a few qualifications. As I understand the law, anyone has a right to enter your property to meet the owner/occupier, however this is expected to be by the normal front entrance as far as the front door. Where the front gate is locked, that is as far as they are permitted to go. If there is nobody home or they are not welcome and asked to leave they must leave by the same way. An exception is meter readers who must have free access to the meters.

People do not have an unabated right to enter your property without your permission.



The dangerous dog warning is a local government law which I think still various a bit around the country. As I understand it is an advisory sign for where people may come in contact with your dog while entering your property. If the dogs are secured in a yard by a high fence that is locked, and you trespassed into the back yard by climbing over that fence, it would be nigh on impossible to sue for negligence on the premis that there was no dangerous dog sign.

The law of negligence is a two way street. One has a duty to be responsible for your own actions too... to mitigate any loss, damage or injury.



There has been some cases where burglers have entered a house and been beaten up by the owner and got compensation. But that was for using 'undue' force to protect his property. In other words it was held that the startled owner should not have beaten the intruder so badly.

I also believe this law is or has been ammended to reflect the notion that your home is your sanctuary and you have the right to protect it as well as yourself. An important aspect of the changes is that a person committing a crime has no recourse against another party protecting themselves or their property.

Some of the rediculious precidents that I think you are referring to are similar to the case of the drunk going for a swim, diving into shallow water and injuring his spine. He won an enormous compensation under common law of negligence but lost it on appeal and I believe there are now statuatory laws to prevent this type of claim.



In this case, because this womans mother was a neighbour, and I believe the report said the dogs were in the back yard and this woman was in fact trespassing, I think it would be a very difficult to argue ignorance about the dogs demeanour let alone claim any damages for negligence. As I suggested initially, the woman who entered the yard was well aware of the circumstances of the dogs, but chose to do it anyway.

Akin to the drunk diving into shallow water and trying to sue the surf club and the robber claiming unreasonable force to stop him. These loopholes in common law that smart criminal lawyers have used, have or are being closed by statute.

Thanks Whiskers ...


From what I remember ... Some time ago now since I needed to know any of this ... this was pretty much my understanding as well..

Thanks for the research ...