Pit Bull Critically Injures Mailman, Owners Refuse to Surrender Animal

[LisaSt]

Ok one quick question why does everything come down to one person sueing the other? It seems people are lawyer and sue happy in the US up here you can no longer sue for whiplash etc due to car accidents. It seems odd to me that no matter how big or small it all comes down to one person sueing the other. Not sure why everyone seems to want to sue each other. Sorry if this sounds strange but in Canada we don't sue each other like this for things that happen.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by LisaSt
Ok one quick question why does everything come down to one person sueing the other?

Who mentioned lawsuits?

 

[LisaSt]

There are a couple people on this thread that stated they would sue the person for everything they had that is all I was just curious.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by LisaSt
There are a couple people on this thread that stated they would sue the person for everything they had that is all I was just curious.

A "couple" out of the 62 people that have posted here? If you want to discuss their comments, please quote them so we don't have to wade through 5 pages to find it.

 

[peachgirl]

Sorry if this sounds strange but in Canada we don't sue each other like this for things that happen.

"Things" that happen??? This man was viciously attacked. The dog's owner is responsible.

I have no idea what they do in Canada, but if you can be attacked by a dog and critically injured and the owner gets off with no penalties then I don't care much for Canada's system.

 

[LisaSt]

Sorry forgot to post the quotes it was just a question I had as I know here we get paid by the insurance companies and they then gfo after the other persons insurance company for reimbursment. A good friend of ours was t boned in her car and has whiplash and a back injury so her insurance company has been paying for treatment etc and is now getting reimursed by the other womans insurance company. I am not saying we can't sue it is just very uncommon here for it to happen.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by LisaSt
I am not saying we can't sue it is just very uncommon here for it to happen.

Since this man is in critical condition, chances are his wounds are so serious that he will suffer permanent disfigurement. I hope he does seek compensation from the responsible party. You can't compare his situation to someone who is temporarily uncomfortable with whiplash.

 

[LisaSt]

Who was comparing I was stating what happens up here not a comparison to this. You don't see that happen up here either the authorities deal with it here and it is done for dog attacks etc. There are lawsuits up here for some things like that but very few I guess it just isn't looked at as a way to get compensation here.

 

[kellib36]

Originally posted by luvmk
I noticed on the dog rescue site that a requirement for adoption is the adopting family must have a securely fenced yard. We have adopted dogs before(not pit bulls) and a fenced yard was never a requirement. It does make it sound like even though these dogs have gone through the necessary care, the adopting agency still knows they could pose a danger.

I belong to a bichon rescue group......a secure fenced yard is a requirement for them. Any rescue dog is so frightened and they need a secure place to start feeling like they're in control of their lives. This isn't unusual anymore.

If anyone wants a real uplifting story about a dog rescue, go to smallpawsrescue.com, scroll down to "Evander Hollyfield is FOUND!" and read that story! Also, there is a short video clip at the end of the story. It highlights the fact that rescued dogs don't always appreciate the fact that they're safe right away. They are usually so damaged that they need a lot of time and patience from their new family.

Kelli

 

[N.Bailey]

LisaSt,
You've also heard in this thread that some areas require a $100,000 insurance policy for owners of these pit bulls. I really believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this man (we'll use him in this example) is going to have some major medical bills and I'm certain he's losing income from not being able to work. He's also going through a tremendous amount of pain and suffering. Unless he sues to get some of these expenses back, no one is going to walk right up to him and hand him anything. Now, he may have medical insurance through his work, and as someone working for the postal service, I'm certain he does and I'm sure he'll qualify for workers comp beings this incident happened while he was working, but all his deductibles he'd have to bear himself and if he has any permanent damage, there would be no reimbursement to him unless he sued. If he did sue, he'd be suing the insurance company (hopefully these people have a liability policy). If these people have no insurance, he'd probably spend more in attorney fees than he'd ever gain from these people and a lawsuit would be a waste of time and money, IMO.

Now, if say, this didn't happen to someone during work hours, there would be no pay reimbursement at all.

As for suing in automobile accidents. We have two options when we take out our automobile policies. You can have full tort options. This is where you are not limited to when you're able to sue and when you're not, or you can get limited tort. Limited tort is cheaper, but they put limits on you. Personally, I carry full tort. Not really that I want or plan to sue anyone, but I don't want anyone telling me when I can and when I can't.

You are right though, Americans are sue happy and some caps should be put in place. Especially when you're talking malpractice suits. All these suits are driving the health care system to a point where it's unaffordable for most families who do not have health insurance through their place of employment. If the doctor is negligent, that's one thing, but that's not the case in a LOT of the suits.

 

[LisaSt]

N Bailey see our helathcare is covered we do not pay for it here so we do not have to worry about trying to get compensation for those things. If we need any physio therapy etc it is paid for by our insurance company and they get compensated by the other persons insurance. I guess that is where the largest difference is in this type of situation. We are also required to carry auto insurance we can't opt out of it at all. Just dofferent societies is all I guess it is funny no matter how similar we are in most aspects we still differ and that is what makes the 2 countries so great.

 

[Taylor]

When I was 8 years old I was almost killed by a German Shepard. It was our dog. The animal was 2 years old and we had just gotten it several months before. While playing with "Lady", I tried to pick her up since my 11 year old brother just did it. When I tried the dog turned on me and took me to the ground. I had a pierce wound at the base of my nose (not even noticeable today) and had the roof of my mouth torn apart. If my brother had not been there I would have been killed. I was in surgery for hours and had to have my upper teeth wired in.

The funny thing is that to this day I love dogs and especially German Shepards. The last one I had (Hugo) was put down 2 years ago due to old age. I miss him dearly.

I guess the moral of the story is that any dog can bite at any given time. Also, I would never take on another dog that I didn't get as a pup.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
This comparison is just silly. While I agree that there are a lot of irresponsible drivers out there, that's a whole separate issue. The truth behind the pit bull however is, in all cases, these dogs were not mistreated by their owner. You can argue that point till something freezes over, but it's simply not the case!!

WHAT!!?!?!

This dog was left tied up outside, the dogs in the most recent attacks were left to wander the streets at night?!?!? How well do you think they were being taken care of.

By normal dog owners standards, neglecting your pet is mistreating your pet. If you want a pet - train it, pay attention to it and get it used to people.

Abuse is not always beating the heck out of a dog with a whip. Please learn a bit about dog ownership before you go making a comment like this.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX


This dog was left tied up outside, the dogs in the most recent attacks were left to wander the streets at night?!?!? How well do you think they were being taken care of.

How do you know that the dog was mistreated? Just because he was chained outside at the time of the attack doesn't mean that he was left out there all the time. He could have been someone's "loving pet" for all you know. You're making assumptions based on what you want to believe, not the facts in the news article.

I suppose next you will be blaming the victim. I still can't believe you posted that this dog should be retrained and put into someone's home after what he did to that man. Maybe if it ended up next door to you, you'd feel differently... Hopefully the dog will be destroyed before he kills someone.

 

[peachgirl]

This dog was left tied up outside.....

Actually, a majority of attacks are by dogs on their owner's property, unrestrained (not chained). Only a very small number of attacks are by chained dogs.

The facts speak for themselves. Yes, any breed can bite. Only a handful of breeds are responsible for the vast majority of DEADLY attacks.

Seems like I post these statistics everytime this argument comes up, but here they are again.


In a 20 year study 237 people were killed by dog attacks:

Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of all deaths.

55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off property.
133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property. <br>38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners’ property.</br>
1 (1%)involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property.

The top 3 breeds in number of deadly attacks:
Pit Bull 118
Rottweiler 67
German Shepherd 41

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by Bojangles
How do you know that the dog was mistreated? Just because he was chained outside at the time of the attack doesn't mean that he was left out there all the time. He could have been someone's "loving pet" for all you know. You're making assumptions based on what you want to believe, not the facts in the news article.

I suppose next you will be blaming the victim. I still can't believe you posted that this dog should be retrained and put into someone's home after what he did to that man. Maybe if it ended up next door to you, you'd feel differently... Hopefully the dog will be destroyed before he kills someone.

And you are making assumptions that he wasn't mistreated, owned by morons who trained him to attack. You do not know anything about these dogs except from what you hear on the nightly news.

Do you also think all Muslims are terrorists and all black teenage boys are gang members? right back at ya.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Actually, a majority of attacks are by dogs on their owner's property, unrestrained (not chained). Only a very small number of attacks are by chained dogs.

The facts speak for themselves. Yes, any breed can bite. Only a handful of breeds are responsible for the vast majority of DEADLY attacks.

Seems like I post these statistics everytime this argument comes up, but here they are again.


In a 20 year study 237 people were killed by dog attacks:

Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of all deaths.

55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off property.
133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property. <br>38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners’ property.</br>
1 (1%)involved a restrained dog off its owner’s property.

The top 3 breeds in number of deadly attacks:
Pit Bull 118
Rottweiler 67
German Shepherd 41

Where did you get this study from? Does it give any stats on how responsible the owners were?

I grew up with Shepards and Rotties. Never had an attack ever. My neices have a pitbull, and I know several other families with pitbulls. In fact of all the dog owners I know PERSONALLY, the only dog that has ever had an incident was a poodle who mauled a toddler, and it took several adults to pull the poodle off.

There is no sense arguing with people who are so brainwashed by the nightly news so I think I'll probably leave this thread. I already had a thread about what WONDERFUL PETS pitbulls are but those who want to belive they are mean, will belive they are mean.

 

[Bojangles]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
And you are making assumptions that he wasn't mistreated, owned by morons who trained him to attack.

Where did I say the dog was not mistreated. I have no idea what its living conditions were and neither do you. You were the one making assumptions without any factual information to base it on, not me.



Mistreated or not, the dog almost killed someone and should be destroyed.


And you should really be ashamed of yourself for equating my views about dangerous animals to racism. That's really pathetic.

 

[gymnasticsmom68]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
And you are making assumptions that he wasn't mistreated, owned by morons who trained him to attack. You do not know anything about these dogs except from what you hear on the nightly news.

Do you also think all Muslims are terrorists and all black teenage boys are gang members? right back at ya.

That sounds pretty close to a personal attack if you ask me. That's QUITE the leap there, holy cow!!!!!!!!

 

[disneyjunkie]

Originally posted by EsmeraldaX
Do you also think all Muslims are terrorists and all black teenage boys are gang members? right back at ya.

This thread is about dogs, not people. In my world the two are not equal.

If a person of a different race or religion moved in next door to me, it would not bother me one bit. If someone moved in with a PB, I'd be very angry.