About two months ago my assistant recieved a phone call from the police that a teenager had broken into her house and was attacked by her dog (a 3 yr old white pitbull). The boy called 911 from the house and the poilce needed her to come get the dog so this kid could get medical attention. ( seems the dog bit off his left buttock). After the boy got out of the hospital (3 wks) he sued and won $150,000 for medical expensese. The reason .. she did not have a beware of dog sign posted. He was charged w/ breaking and entering but as he was only 15 the punishment was probated? does this seem fair?
2007-01-13 02:52:14 · 15 answers · asked by GI 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
her home owners paid. And he had a medical card so our goverment paid for his medical expenses. He and is mother now have $150,000 free and clear.
2007-01-13 03:26:33 · update #1
It doesn't, but look at the kids who pool-hop. If one drowns, it's the owners fault for not having a fence high enough.
As for the statement that this is the liberal's fault, do you have evidence to back that up? Especially since conservative seem to feel that businesses shouldn't have to be responsible for their own well-being and insist on tons of corporate welfare. Why is it OK to give money away to failing businesses, but not individuals?
2007-01-13 03:01:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is nuts The dog was only doing what he was supposed to do protect the property If someone breaks in and they get bite by the owners dog Too damn bad they should not have broke in. The owner should not have to pay one red cent They are the victim here not the person who broke in. In my house it's never mind the dog beware the owner If you break in and I am home at the time I will probably shoot you And Yes I do have signs posted to that effect
2007-01-13 11:07:29 · answer #2 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, no this is not fair. Unfortunately, such unfair things happen a lot. She is, of course, entitled to appeal the verdict. Her chances depend on local ordinances having to do with "Beware of Dog" signs. Some tesspassing cases have been judged against property owners because the did not have a sign posted.
2007-01-13 11:00:25 · answer #3 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The essense of fairness is that anyone can sue anyone for everything. The chances that he will have a successful claim are minimal and this will probably open up his attorney to sanctions.
The purpose of a "Beware of dog" sign is to alert and prepare those that your dog may be in outdoor space, not so that people know you have a dog inside the house.
2007-01-13 11:01:02 · answer #4 · answered by harrisnish 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
HEY!! I'm from NY State (US) the only thing I see here that could possibly be wrong is ... the decimal point in the settlement! Could that have been $1,500,000?
Here in NY state we believe that even the most vile, skank, human being alive is worth at least a cool mil if he is injured while breaking and entering into the premises of a law-abiding citizens!
2007-01-13 23:36:58 · answer #5 · answered by ornery and mean 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I can believe it. This country has completely lost sight of right and wrong. No one is held accountable anymore and we've turned into a "blame the victim" society by attempting to rationalize the actions of bad or evil.
Pity the child molester next door and fight for his right to live unidentified, rally and fight for the life of a murderer, but defend the right to abort fetuses. Something is definitely in the water and we need to purify it before we all go insane.
2007-01-13 11:02:55 · answer #6 · answered by kathy059 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not fair but typical. We've lost sense of liability and responsibility in this country. Suing is the first thing that comes to mind and sometimes - more often than not - it's the victims that are being sued.
2007-01-13 10:56:45 · answer #7 · answered by BonnieLee 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it does not seem fair in the slightest.......so where are you MEANT to have the sign posted....we have a large one put on the gate to the six foot fence but if they break into the house does this mean I would have to have one at each entry point to the house...............and to be honest he was damm lucky to get away with just that injury................if that was my pittie a bite on the bum would be the least of his worries.
Hopefully her house insurance would cover this outlay, which they should do so long as they knew she had a pit on the house.
Maybe she could appeal this case as it really seems to me that she would have a fair chance of getting this put aside as a judgment.
2007-01-13 11:04:58 · answer #8 · answered by candy g 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO it is NOT fair. Animals have a right to protect themselves and the homes they live in. He committed a crime, he should have to pay his own medical expenses. He was indeed old enough to know he was violating the law !!
2007-01-13 11:15:48 · answer #9 · answered by Kathy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
nice try. didn't hear about it and probably didn't happen . you don't get to keep money for medical expenses. you keep the money for pain and suffering. the only part of your story that seems correct is a homeowner that has a pit bull is required to carry extra insurance
2007-01-13 12:40:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋