Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
In Maryland, Pit Bulls targeted (Court of Appeals)
Bright line rules have their place. Society often benefits from clear, objective and unambiguous rules, when those rules produce even-handed and predictable results and have very little risk of creating harsh or unjust results. Take speed limits, voting ages, and Miranda warnings as examples.
But sometimes life is not black and white. Bright line rules are inappropriate and dangerous tools any time the issues turn on a variety circumstances and there is a risk of sweeping up innocent activity or individuals. Then a balancing test, or case-by-case analysis, is much more appropriate.
Today, the Court of Appeals of Maryland opted for a bright line rule in exactly the kind of case where a bright line rule is inappropriate. In Tracey v. Solesky, the Court ruled:
Upon a plaintiff?s sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull cross, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull?s presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has a right to prohibit such dogs on leased premises) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull, that person is liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner?s or lessor?s premises. In that case a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence. When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.
Such a bright line rule ? pit bulls are per se dangerous ? is misguided. Don?t get me wrong. I in no way condone what happened in this case. The dog was left in a small pen, escaped, and attacked and seriously injured a child. The owner put the dog back in the same pen, and the dog escaped yet again, and mauled another child, causing life threatening injuries.
The dog?s breed is not the main issue in this case. The much larger issue is the fact that the owner was completely irresponsible.
There was no reason for the Court to make new law in this case. The defendant could have tried to invoke the ?one free bite? rule. But, at best, the ?one free bite? rule would only help him escape civil liability for money damages as to the first child. He was certainly on notice of the dog?s propensity when the second child was attacked. Additionally, the ?one free bite? rule would not impede a dangerous dog proceeding, and a well-crafted dangerous dog statute can provide restitution to victims without the hassle of a civil law suit.
The most frustrating part of this ruling is that there are many pit bull and pit bull mix owners who are highly responsible and who will get swept up in this bright line rule. Likewise, the ruling will not affect the highly irresponsible owners of dogs who are not pit bulls or pit bull mixes. Dare I even mention the issue of how a court is to determine whether a dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix.
Courts and legislators should focus on owner responsibility, not breed. Fortunately, Virginia?s dangerous dog statute makes it clear that breed alone is not a reason to declare a dog to be dangerous. I hope Virginia keeps its focus on owner responsibility and does not choose to follow the path of neighboring Maryland in this regard.
Re: In Maryland, Pit Bulls targeted (Court of Appeals)
Because pit bulls are the only dogs that attack.
The neighbors pit bull attacked me yesterday. She kept trying to lick my feet in my sandals as I was walking.
"The hardest thing is to live richly in the present without letting it be tainted out of fear for the future or regret for the past." - Sylvia Plath
I heard about this yesterday from a friend who works for Animal Farm Foundation/National Canine Research Council.
I'm LIVID. If a pit bull bites someone, they owner is (rightly) liable. But if someone's lab gets loose and bite's someone, oh, well, your injuries don't matter.
From http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2012/04/
strict_liability_for_pit_bulls_1.html
Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.
All the research and dog behavior analysis points to the fact that pit bulls are NOT human aggressive by nature. In fact, they score higher than many other common breeds of dogs in friendliness and human interaction. So when I read positions or laws passed that directly contradicts all the research out there, I have to wonder just how smart these people are and what the hell else they're flubbing up.
Ugh. This makes me so angry!
The decision basically reads like a list of everything stereotypical ever said by any court in the US about a pit bull, most of this stuff I thought had been disproved in one way or another, so the whole thing is making me stabby.
I'm about to start reading the dissent though which I'm hoping will restore some of my faith in our COA.
I will point out though to clarify - this doesn't mean no other dog owners CAN be found liable if their dog attacks someone (if there is a history of violence or aggression, etc) - it just means that the plaintiff in a case involving a pit bull does not have to prove that the particular dog was violent, bc a pit bull is considered per se violent. So my lab could attack someone and I could be sued and found liable, but there would be an extra step involved that would not be involved if I owned a pit bull. This also holds the landlords liable for any pit attacks bc they technically have the power to say "no pit bulls."
I think we have the same friend ;-)
my read shelf:
Initials L.R.M.?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you. My Blog
What hooker could that be!?
In all seriousness this is heartbreaking. I work at a shelter in MD and we are not changing our adoption policy on pit bull type dogs but there are now 5 local shelters who are halting pit bull adoptions. One shelter took a pit bull from us to put up for adoption, as they were just starting to allow pit bull adoptions again, and asked us for an amazing ambassador to showcase. They have one of the best pit bull ambassadors ever, he is amazing! Well, they called earlier to say we can take him back or he'll be pts, no more pit bull adoptions.
Baltimore City, where we're located, has a HUGE % of renters, I don't even want to think about what our owner surrender intake will be...