Who would be liable?

Question

My dog is not good with children. He's 9 yo and has never lived with kids and on the occasions that children are around I watch him closely because I know that he is capable of fearful aggression. I don't allow him around small children at all. He doesn't lunge or attack, but he'll nip and snap at fingers

When my roommate moved in a year ago, I informed her of this and if she ever had any kids over when I wasn't home she needed to put my dog in my room. Her nephew who is almost 3 comes over often and she disregards my instructions. I think she's simply too lazy to do it. The dog bit him once but didn't break the skin, she still doesn't listen. It makes me nervous because the child has a habit getting too close to the dogs face and putting his hands in the dogs face, which is how he got bit. The little boy is not adequately supervised.

If something were to happen would I be liable, given that I've warned her? The kids mother knows about this too.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, yes, you would be liable. It is sad, but true. She lives in the house, so she has every right to have kids in. You already know the dog is a fear nipper. It is just a lawsuit waiting to happen, and it's not fair.

Answer 2

Depending on your state, but in general yes you could be found liable. You have an animal that may pose a danger and you are responsible to guarentee that it does not have the oportunity to hurt someone. Now how you do that in reality is a tough answer. Beside locking the dog in a cage everytime you leave (which is cruel) I don't know how you should handle this. If you happen to get a new roommate in the future I would include instructions about your dog on the contract.

I had a rescued boxer. She was extremely abused and the local shelter was going to euthenize her because she was not "placeable". I managed to get her and had a very difficult time with proper security.
Example: we had a pool and the pool cleaning guy knew that he was to come to the front door so I could secure her before entering our back gate. Then he sent a sub and didn't give him proper instructions and he walked in the back with a broom - which was a "trigger" for and she went nuts, literally trying to kill him. Now she was a precision disciplined dog, couldn't get a better behaved dog except if there was a "trigger' around and then she would go rabid. So I had to restrain her as best I could and convice the guy to drop the broom, which was the only thing keeping her from biting his throat. She had snapped the broomstick in half already. He let go of the broom (after what seemed like an eternity) and she converted back to her good ol' self.
We no longer have her, she was given to another rescue care taker who had better facilities to care for her.
He had a large property with huge outdoor cages that would properly keep her secured. He also care for wolves occasionally. (She was capable of clearing a 8 foot fence so our yard just wasn't cutting it and California, where we were at, made it illegal to chain a dog. So she would jump over the fence when I would leave the house and wonder around. -Not a good situation.)

Answer 3

Most states use the "control" standard when it comes to dog bites. That is at the time the bite occurred who had "control" of the animal. It does not depend on who was/is the true owner of the dog. Since the dog was at your (you and your roommate's) residence, then the owner (or lessee) on the premise who allows a visitor inside, with knowledge of the animal's predisposition for fear biting/snapping, is considered in "control" of the animal and would be liable for damages to the visitor.

However, you still have another problem, that is if you care what happens to your dog. Just because your roommate would be liable for damages, doesn't mean that the dog won't be adjudicated as a "dangerous animial." If the party who was biten files suit against the dog owner (or in this case, the person in control of the animal), then during that proceeding the court can find that the (actually it would be a separate case, but the first case would bring the dog to the court's attention) dog is "dangerous" and have it put down for being a threat to public safety. If you want more information on this line of law just let me know.

Answer 4

No you would not be, all because you forewarned her. Your dog is at home it is not your dog ran up the street and bit someone. I have a peke pup who is the same way and I warn people also about their small children and they don't listen because she is so cute that she looks harmless. One day the neighbor came with her nephew and the child did the same thing and she was upset about my pup biting him and yes she bit him through the skin. There was nothing she could do because my pup was at home and had all her shots. So the person liable is the person who allows their child to bit. On the other hand I have a friend that brings her son over and he loves for her to bite him he will put his hands near her mouth over and over again just so she will bit him and now she has gotten used to him and doesn't bit him as often! Weird huh? But like I said as long as you tell them that' what your dog will do you are not liable for others not watching their children when over your house!!!

Answer 5

Yes, you're going to be potentially liable because you are the homeowner and you still live there. You do not get a complete pass just because you warn someone. You are allowing the child in your home knowing that the aunt is irresponsible. Remember the kid is not a slave and even though parents sue on behalf of and with their children, the child's rights will be enforced because you have a duty to the Child himself. Also, generally, children are held to a lesser standard of care when it comes to suits and at 3, your state law probably won't even consider what the child's actions were against him in his suit. Finally, you are already on notice that the dog bit and could hurt the child. If I was prosecuting that potential second bite case against you, I would feel pretty confident of my chances.

Answer 6

Sorry but you would be liable. Your dog is getter older and as you said is not use to children and so may not have the patience. You did not say if your dog was female or male. Some females can have maternal instincts regarding children. Try to encourage this such when the child is over have him go for a supervised walk with you and the dog but get permission first. also let the child pet the dog but only in your presence and show him how. reward your dog for this good behavior. whatever you do talk it out as an helpful dog owner do not exhibit anger in the dogs presence towards the child. good luck .
a dog owner too.

Answer 7

Yes, you'd be liable but IF YOU CAN SHOW your friend was fully apprised of the warning and chose to disregard it, that would be considered contributory negligence, which would reduce the amount of damages. Strongly suggest you put the warning just as you have here in writing and send it to roommate by registered mail as evidence that you warned her. Log the visits and do your absolute best to be home when the kid is there. You are aware of the danger - how could you not be after the bite - which makes it a foreseeable harm. You would be considered extremely negligent NOT to make a best effort to prevent this harm.

It might be prudent to consider losing either:

1. roommate, who must be intellectually challenged to expose a beloved small child to such obvious danger REPEATEDLY, or perhaps more appropriately

2. the dangerous animal, which might also turn on you.

Why people choose to keep such toxic pet-slaves (see http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=275) eludes me but apparently I'm not the majority - so far.

Answer 8

The kids mother could probably sue both you AND the aunt if the boy were injured.

You own a dog that you know is potentially dangerous. It is YOUR responsibility to ensure it's not given the opportunity to hurt someone.

At the same time, your roommate knows the dog is potentially dangerous. When she's babysitting, she has a responsibility to exercise proper care. Allowing the kid to play with the dog is negligent.

Were I the parent, and the kid was hurt, I'd sue you both. Hope you have good renters insurance.

Incidentally, a judgment against you both could likely be reduced due to contributory negligence on the mothers part if she knows of the danger and allows the kid to come over anyway.

Richard

Answer 9

Given that it is a child and you are the dogs owner and you allowed the child in your home I'm afraid you would be liable.
even worse if the child were seriously hurt the dog could be euthanized by the courts. I would either find a new home for the dog or your roommate. It's a shame your roommate doesn't have enough responsibility to watch the child or heed your requests

Answer 10

Even if you have told and warned visitors regardless of age, yes, you are still responsible for the dog and it's actions. Sounds like your roommate does not think much of this child knowing how the dog is or atleast could be toward a child and not to help prevent a possible injury to the child.