Woman suing owner of dog that her dogs killed

Disclaimer, I did a quick search, didn't see anything.

I understand the title of the topic sounds kinda weird, but here is the jist of the story:

The story: Two neighbors both have dogs. One neighbor has 4 pitbulls, the other has a beagle. There is an older wooden fence in between yards; 4 pitbulls managed to get through the fence and proceed to maul and kill the beagle. The owner of the pitbulls, a woman, supposedly tried to pull her dogs off the beagle, but it was in vain.

In the end, the owner of the beagle told police he did not want the dogs put down, only to have them declared dangerous, and that is about it. A court agreed and the owner of the 4 pitbulls is now required to get 100,000 dollars liability insurance on her dogs, pay for installation of a new 6 foot fence along her property, and register the pitbulls as "dangerous animals" annually. Between cops shooting dogs that are running away and PETA driving up to your house, snatching your Chihuahua and putting it down, sounds like the woman, if she really cares about her dogs that much got a #ing deal. But not, she apparently thinks she deserves more. She is now SUING the owner of the beagle that HER DOGS KILLED, in the BEAGLE'S YARD. She is claiming she suffered bite and scratch wounds from her own dogs (ok, so if your dog is willing to bite you, why are you so attached to it?) and is now suffering from 'fear, anxiety, and trepidation' as a result of the attack HER DOGS COMMITTED.

LINK

I am both shocked and not shocked at this nonsense. The non shocked part is because we have heard of COMPLETELY frivilous lawsuits such as the woman who bought coffee then spilled it on her lap then sued the store that sold her the coffee because it was too hot. But then there is this woman, she shocks me and has definitely set a new bar, right up there with the Burglar who injured himself while breaking into someones home and sued them. I really REALLY hope this judge throws this lawsuit out and then fines the woman for wasting the courts time for a frivolous lawsuit. And, although I am an extreme dog lover, especially for pitbulls, It may very well may be the best course of action to have those dogs put down. I really love dogs, but I have never been bitten by them with intent to injure, even in the midst of several fights they got into among themselves (breaking up dog fights is scary). I have broken up at least a dozen dog fights, and have never once been bitten. Them attacking the beagle is one thing, you could MAYBE argue territorial, but the biting of their OWNER is inexcusable. This isn't them biting someone who has attacked them or attacked their owner, they bit HER, MULTIPLE TIMES by the sound of that article, but then again, maybe it is for the best if her dogs bite her, maybe it will teach her a lesson.

Anywhoo, thoughts? Discuss?

originally posted by: chuck258
Disclaimer, I did a quick search, didn't see anything.

I understand the title of the topic sounds kinda weird, but here is the jist of the story:

The story: Two neighbors both have dogs. One neighbor has 4 pitbulls, the other has a beagle. There is an older wooden fence in between yards; 4 pitbulls managed to get through the fence and proceed to maul and kill the beagle. The owner of the pitbulls, a woman, supposedly tried to pull her dogs off the beagle, but it was in vain.

In the end, the owner of the beagle told police he did not want the dogs put down, only to have them declared dangerous, and that is about it. A court agreed and the owner of the 4 pitbulls is now required to get 100,000 dollars liability insurance on her dogs, pay for installation of a new 6 foot fence along her property, and register the pitbulls as "dangerous animals" annually. Between cops shooting dogs that are running away and PETA driving up to your house, snatching your Chihuahua and putting it down, sounds like the woman, if she really cares about her dogs that much got a #ing deal. But not, she apparently thinks she deserves more. She is now SUING the owner of the beagle that HER DOGS KILLED, in the BEAGLE'S YARD. She is claiming she suffered bite and scratch wounds from her own dogs (ok, so if your dog is willing to bite you, why are you so attached to it?) and is now suffering from 'fear, anxiety, and trepidation' as a result of the attack HER DOGS COMMITTED.

LINK

I am both shocked and not shocked at this nonsense. The non shocked part is because we have heard of COMPLETELY frivilous lawsuits such as the woman who bought coffee then spilled it on her lap then sued the store that sold her the coffee because it was too hot. But then there is this woman, she shocks me and has definitely set a new bar, right up there with the Burglar who injured himself while breaking into someones home and sued them. I really REALLY hope this judge throws this lawsuit out and then fines the woman for wasting the courts time for a frivolous lawsuit. And, although I am an extreme dog lover, especially for pitbulls, It may very well may be the best course of action to have those dogs put down. I really love dogs, but I have never been bitten by them with intent to injure, even in the midst of several fights they got into among themselves (breaking up dog fights is scary). I have broken up at least a dozen dog fights, and have never once been bitten. Them attacking the beagle is one thing, you could MAYBE argue territorial, but the biting of their OWNER is inexcusable. This isn't them biting someone who has attacked them or attacked their owner, they bit HER, MULTIPLE TIMES by the sound of that article, but then again, maybe it is for the best if her dogs bite her, maybe it will teach her a lesson.

Anywhoo, thoughts? Discuss?

welcome to the brave new world....a result in court is a good as the lawyer you employ....pretty sad huh....

since the T&Cs do not allow me to say how i really feel i will say that IF her dogs decide to eat her one day it will not be a huge loss

a reply to: chuck258

All pit bull owners should have to register their dogs as dangerous and be ridiculed by society. Pit bulls shouldn't even be allowed within city limits. There's no need to have these kinds of animals.

There is no case here.
One party is minus one dog.

a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace

I do not know what is scarier . The pitbulls ,their owner or the very fact that their is a lawyer and a court system willing to take this on .

a reply to: chuck258

She also alleges feeling “conscious pain and suffering and now suffers also from fear anxiety and trepidation” as a result of the “unprovoked attack.”

Hmmm, maybe just maybe you ought to get rid of the pitbulls, being as they are the cause and reason for your issues now

I can't believe she found lawyer willing to take on such a frivolous and outrageous claim as this

Hope the judge drops it and tells her that SHE'S lucky her neighbors did not try to sue her!!
In fact, I would bring a counter-suit on just for spite after her pulling a stunt like this
Unbelievable....*sigh*

But then again, this is the way things are headed in today's society
Failure to accept responsibility while blaming others
Just playing the 'blame game'

a reply to: chuck258

The non shocked part is because we have heard of COMPLETELY frivilous lawsuits such as the woman who bought coffee then spilled it on her lap then sued the store that sold her the coffee because it was too hot.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise but this part isn't quite right. I don't remember the name but there's a doc about this that was put up here on ATS a few months ago. Maybe someone could help with that as I'm blank. That lawsuit was not as frivolous as you were led to believe.

This one, however, does seem to be absolutely frivolous and a waste of the courts time. I don't see how this lady can sue someone else for her own negligence.

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

Perhaps if she said my great dane choked on your chihuahua perhaps .

a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace

I will counter your blanket and ignorant statement with my own. You must never have owned a pitbull in your life.

During my life, my family has owned 3 pitbulls, never once did any of them bite me. Those dog fights I talked about? Never once were they started by my pitbulls. You see, we at one point had 4 dogs. A yellow lab (who, by all indications was the pack leader, none of the other dogs ever messed with him), a male Britanny Spaniel, a female pitbull and a male pitbull britanny spaniel mix (one of the females first litters). Well, nature took it's course several times and she would go into heat, and the Britanny Spaniel would get SUPER horny, protective and aggressive, that little *hit would hardly even eat. Well, the yellow lab was fixed when we got him at about 2 years old, but when we got the britanny spaniel when HE was about 2 years old, he wasn't and my parents originally wanted him to make little britanny spaniels. the Spaniel-Pitbull mix was never fixed, as we could not afford it. Every time the female went into heat, the britanny spaniel would be extremely aggressive to scooby (britanny-spaniel mix) and though we were mostly successful keeping them separate, they would occasionally get to close and get into it. EVERY TIME, it was the britanny spaniel that started the fight. This little spritzy dog that liked to chase butterflies in the backyard would try to take on his son who had about 15 pounds on him.

Never once with our female pitbull have we had a situation where she was aggressive. Every she met a new dog she was cautious, but that is only natural instinct. You could never get this girl to bite, she would sure lick you to death though, she LOVED licking your face, she was so comfortable with us that when she had puppies, she didn't even care when we took them out of the little house we got for her to keep them. This is a 'vicious' female pitbull who has just given birth to a litter of puppies not 3 days ago and she didn't bat an eye when we took the little puppies out to pet them or clean them.

Scooby, the britanny pitbull mix was a different story, but still not by any means aggressive. I could play with this dog and he would bite me say, when I kept the tennis ball from him, or kept it just out of his reach, but only in a playful way, never once did it break skin. He was extremely careful. Even one time I wrapped my arm in a blanket and kept the tennis ball from him, he latched on and bit, but his teeth weren't touching my skin so I barely reacted, so he increased the bite pressure until I reacted and he immediately let go. EXTREMELY CAREFUL and patient.

I could go on, but these are typical stories of pitbulls. It is not the dog that is bad, it is the owner who gets a pitbull because they are cool but doesn't have the experience to train and socialize them. Neither of our pitbulls ever ran away. You know who did? The Britanny spaniel, ran away any chance he could get (this is because we got him fully grown). It is all in how you raise the dog.

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

I don't know where it was, and I have heard this story in several different versions, from it being coffee from McDonalds to being from 7 eleven. The jist of the story was the woman sued them because she had the coffee in her lap in the car (between her legs) and one way or another, the lid popped off and scalding hot coffee burned her inner thighs and genitals, she may have gotten into a car accident.

Either way, you would think the average person would know that coffee is made with extremely hot water, and would have the common sense not to put it in her lap in a cardboard/paper cup with a thin plastic lid. Today, after changing the brakes on my car I heard what sounded like the rotors dragging on the pads after taking it for a test drive, my dumb ass touched the rotor because I saw some brake pad debris and burned my finger. If I were this woman, I would have sued Ford for not telling me the rotor was going to be hot after rolling down a hill testing the brakes.

a reply to: chuck258

They say the best means of defense is attack

a reply to: chuck258

because we have heard of COMPLETELY frivilous lawsuits such as the woman who bought coffee then spilled it on her lap then sued the store that sold her the coffee because it was too hot.

The infamous case was not frivolous, the woman suffered 3rd degree burns, and needed skin grafts. The company had a faulty coffee maker and the water was near boiling or something of the like (beyond normal temp for coffee). The woman was completely disfigured from the event, and in all rights deserved a settlement after being in the hospital for as long as she was, with scarring, trauma, etc.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

www.lectlaw.com...

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: chuck258

because we have heard of COMPLETELY frivilous lawsuits such as the woman who bought coffee then spilled it on her lap then sued the store that sold her the coffee because it was too hot.

The infamous case was not frivolous, the woman suffered 3rd degree burns, and needed skin grafts. The company had a faulty coffee maker and the water was far above boiling or something of the like, (water boils at 100c). The woman was completely disfigured from the event, and in all rights deserved a settlement after being in the hospital for as long as she was, with scarring, trauma, etc.

the company should be testing each and every machine it produces to avoid a malfunctioning unit...the company clearly is at fault.....as far as animals go they are just that....dogs have good owners and bad owners and the outcome of that is relative to how the animal interacts with those around it......a dalmatian for example can be aggressive but again comes down to the owner...how it was trained and treated...same goes for people

I'm also a dog lover, and considering how many pet owners own pit bulls, I'm sure not all of them are dangerous. It's really the owners themselves and possibly the breeder who has raised some of these dogs to be aggressive. I myself wouldn't want to take a chance owning one, just for the sake of liability. It just takes 1 incident for them to revert back to the aggressiveness that was bred into their blood line in the first place.

We have a doggie day care place where we bring our golden retriever once a week to socialize with other dogs. One day my wife inquired to the owner why she never sees a pit bull at the day care. The owner and trainer replied he doesn't allow them at his facility because their insurance considers them a liability. If I'm not mistaken, some insurance companies now charge more for house insurance, if you own a pit bull or another breed that is considered aggressive and a liability.

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: chuck258

All pit bull owners should have to register their dogs as dangerous and be ridiculed by society. Pit bulls shouldn't even be allowed within city limits. There's no need to have these kinds of animals.

It is not the dogs, it is how they are raised and controlled. It's the owners responsibility, the dogs are not to blame, the owner is. I have never seen a dog that was mean or dangerous without some type of human intervention. This statement is ludicrous. This just years of fear mongering from the MSM. Breeds of dogs do not dictate the behavior training and treatment or lack there of does.

Grim

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
a reply to: chuck258

All pit bull owners should have to register their dogs as dangerous and be ridiculed by society. Pit bulls shouldn't even be allowed within city limits. There's no need to have these kinds of animals.

I don't like dogs in general and especially don't like pitbulls, but I still accept that "dangerous" dogs are more likely the result of upbringing. Some breeds might have a stronger instinct to attack, some individual dogs might have an instinct that is strong enough to overcome any attempts at training, but I think in the vast majority of cases a dog is only dangerous because the owner allows it to happen. Why punish all the owners who successfully raise and train a dog that can become a valued member of the household?

Also, anyone who says that what we are - and are not - allowed to own or want should be based solely on "need" should be beaten to within an inch of their life with a rubber hose.

a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace

Then we should do the same with ALL dogs. All breeds have the potential to become violent, bite or attack a human. I've been around pit bulls and not all are dangerous, it's the way they are raised and treated. Blame the person, not the dog.

My thoughts? This unfortunate waste of oxygen should thank whatever deity she worships that she is not my neighbour,and she should thank it ofen.If ANY breed of dog(s) came into My yard and killed Any animal of mine-i would have made a criminal and/or civil case against her,I would've sued her into vagrancy and made her life hell-and I would sure as hell have requested that her dogs be put down.IT COULD HAVE BEEN A CHILD in the yard that day instead of the poor little Beagle.If a dog had to enter my yard and killed my child,the owner's life would have been forfeit,sooner or later.If their dogs mauled my child,but not unto death,they would have Wished their own life had been forfeit.

I am not a litigious person,South African society is not halfway,oe even quarterway as litigious as American-but I would've sued the blue hell out of this ridiculous woman.She is obviously not fit to own a cat,leave alone PitBulls,which are a breed that especially should be left to people with common sense,integrity,backbone,devotion and commitment.What a piece of work..Jesus.All I can say is,she is luckier than she knows.a reply to: chuck258

Are you telling me a lawyer took the case?

in the states you can sue anyone for anything, if you find a lawyer to take the case....its lame

as to the dog breed thing, i have been on the fence for years about this...

of course all dogs can possibly become violent and attack but not all dogs are built the same..
a pit bull attack would not be the same as a basset hound attack.

in my state, there are several breeds that people simply can not have in the city.....maybe cant is not the right word....discouraged from having....im not 100% on which of these 2 reasons are why but its either because they will not be issued a home owner insurance policy or because they policy would have to be written for a huge amount....

i know a few of the breeds on the 'list' are of course the pit bull, the american bull dog, the presa canario, and the cane corso.....

not sure how i feel about it...i rented a house a few years back and i had an american bull dog...he was huge and yoked up but he was the sweetest dog.....

i think maybe a lot of it is fear and a lot has to do with what we hear...

if a pit bull shreds some kid its all over the news.....if a wiener dog shreds some kid, its not really mentioned