This has something to do with the Ving Rhames case. I know that the guy was a caretaker, but I was just wondering if he was a burglar, could the burglar's family sue the householder ? Personally, I don't think the householder should be held accountable, its no different than shooting a burglar breaking into your house. What do you think? Have any of you heard any cases where the owner's dog killed a burglar?
2007-09-17 14:05:33 · 14 answers · asked by uthamanj 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Let's say the burgular was found armed with a semi-automatic pistol and a KA-BAR. As well as there were no "Beware of dog" signs.
2007-09-17 14:24:43 · update #1
I appreciate everyone's opinions.
2007-09-23 10:53:34 · update #2
A very interesting question. I've noticed that there are laws against having booby traps on your property and a burglar can successfully sue you if he is injured by one, yet it's perfectly legal to have a dangerous animal which does essentially the same thing. So far, courts have always exonerated homeowners if their pets attacked intruders and legitimately defended their home and that's the way I think it should be. But lately, aggressive dogs are being defined by the courts as "weapons" and I'm willing to bet that some lawyer will soon notice this technical discrepancy in the law and argue that a dog in the home is nothing more than a hairy booby trap. I do hope not.
As for your other question, it's really very unlikely for any single dog to kill a healthy full grown human male. In all the news stories I've read about dogs killing people, the person was always either sick and elderly or a small child, and there were usually 2 or more dogs involved in the attack. I imagine 2 or more particularly vicious and unstable pit bulls or rottweilers could literally reduce a burglar to kibble, but any owner who has dogs which are that dangerous would be asking for trouble in the first place.
And not having a "Beware of Dog" sign has no legal bearing on an intruder breaking into your home and getting bitten, any more than not putting up a sign that says "Home insured by Smith & Wesson" if you are armed with a gun and shoot him. All a Beware of Dog sign does is warn people who legitimately visit your property to exercise due caution, and may (hopefully) act as a deterrent to trespassers.
2007-09-17 16:00:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It has happened in the past when a thief invaded a home and was able to sue successfully for damages caused by the homeowner. I don't remember the details though, but I recall it happening. There have been a number of cases when a thief who was shot or otherwise injured by homeowners have managed to sue as well; I'm thinking that a dog bite would be much the same.
The homeowner would be more likely to be not held accountable if there were beware of dog signs displayed.
2007-09-17 21:15:12 · answer #2 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have heard of a case where a homeowner shot and wounded a thief. The thief, after having been convicted of a crime, filed a civil action seeking damages from the homeowner on the grounds that the homeowner had injured the thief and his ability to work at his chosen profession. The thief didn't win, but it goes to show how ridiculous these situations can get.
2007-09-22 22:13:04 · answer #3 · answered by Don C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone breaks into your home, and your dog mauls them, you, the homeowner is/are not responsible for the injuries. Why? Because this person broke into the home. He didn't knock on the door and make nice and say, Hi, might I come in and rob you blind? No, he broke in...He smashed, broke or cut away a part of the window or doorway to forcibly get into the home, with the intent to rob. If the dog eats his leg in the process...good for the dog.
2007-09-17 21:13:12 · answer #4 · answered by teacupn 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have and the house owner was not held responsible. Of course the dog was inside the home at the time.
2007-09-17 21:09:28 · answer #5 · answered by GMR411 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Common law basically states that a home owner cannot use "excessive" force to protect your home.....but you can to protect yourself....let me explain....
There is a case that we studied in my business law course, where a business owner who was repeatedly being robbed figured out that the burgler was coming in through the ventilation shaft in the ceiling.....so the business owner hung a fence from the roof and ran 220 though it. He came in one morning to find a barbeque hanging from the ceiling.......and he was convicted of murder.
We (here in the US) have a pretty f'd up legal system....not sure where you are from, but you can use deadly force ONLY when your life is being threatened....not for being robbed!
2007-09-17 21:15:03 · answer #6 · answered by Josia 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If a person breaks into another's home, he/she has pretty much handed their life to the owner. The owner has a right to defend his home and family. Including the use of deadly force.
2007-09-17 21:48:49 · answer #7 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I will be watching this one! I do not know any law, but I think that if you are breaking in, then you are taking the chance to get caught by anything. People have the right to protect their property.
2007-09-17 21:14:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. They are responsible. For the care and feeding of the dog.
2007-09-17 21:11:43 · answer #9 · answered by t. B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To tell you the truth I'd cheer the dog on! The moron shouldn't have broken into the house.
2007-09-17 21:13:29 · answer #10 · answered by Chsel 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋