Dog Bite: To Sue Or Not To Sue
- Thread starter brownclown
- Start date
tieguy
Banned
Wonderboy said:
still may not be enough to protect you in this case. You have an 8 year old child left alone with a vicious dog that attacks a driver who has a legal right to be on your property while conducting his business. Your unattended child releases the dog from confinement due to your failure to properly supervise the child. As a result this dog is released and attacks a delivery person who has a valid reason for being on your property. Is your front yard fenced and locked to keep strangers out?
a better example might be the gas and electic meter reader who has the right to walk on your property and read the meters. Your option would be to have your gas and electric cut off if you don't want him on your property.
tieguy
Banned
If you are a victim of a dog bite, you have the legal right to seek compensation for your injuries. Laws regarding the legal rights of dog bite victims vary from state to state and even from city to city. In all US states, a dog bite victim can recover compensation for damages from the following: a person whose negligence caused the dog bite, a person in violation of animal restraint and confinement laws, and a person who knowingly kept a dog with a history of aggression towards people.
Sometimes other people can be held responsible for the dog bite incident as well. In certain circumstances landlords, day care centers, and previous owners of the dog can also be held accountable for dog bite injuries. In general, most laws place the responsibility for a dog bite on the dog's owner, and they are held liable for a dog bite victim's injuries and pain and suffering. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a dog bite, it is important to contact a legal professional as soon as possible. For more information about dog bite injuries, please contact us to confer with an attorney who can advise you of your legal rights and options.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/dog-bite/index.html
Sometimes other people can be held responsible for the dog bite incident as well. In certain circumstances landlords, day care centers, and previous owners of the dog can also be held accountable for dog bite injuries. In general, most laws place the responsibility for a dog bite on the dog's owner, and they are held liable for a dog bite victim's injuries and pain and suffering. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a dog bite, it is important to contact a legal professional as soon as possible. For more information about dog bite injuries, please contact us to confer with an attorney who can advise you of your legal rights and options.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/dog-bite/index.html
fireman000
Member
slippery slope - you took the time off voluntarily it seems so I don't think you'd get anything for lost wages.
As for suing the homeowner because their 8 year old child let the dog out - you would have to be able to prove some sort of negligence or intent to harm. It the dog slipped past the child you'd be lucky to get anything.
Here's a link:
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/89974
As for suing the homeowner because their 8 year old child let the dog out - you would have to be able to prove some sort of negligence or intent to harm. It the dog slipped past the child you'd be lucky to get anything.
Here's a link:
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/89974
W
Wonderboy
Guest
tieguy said:
Repeat it all you want but show me a specific case where parents were sued for the <b>negligent act of an 8 year old child</b>.
You can't do it so you'll all just keep repeating yourself
Frank
W
Wonderboy
Guest
tieguy said:
Of course you have the right to seek compensation, but you won't get it in this situation, not if I'm the opposing lawyer.
Frank
W
Wonderboy
Guest
watch out fireman...they're gonna gang up on you
lol
Frank
lol
Frank
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Ok, If I even consider that the 8 year old is even involved, we have this from your link.
So what part of that is hard to understand?
In most cases the parent is liable for the actions of the child. The age of 8 is a magic number as you are well aware.
It would be my contention if you so desire to fight me in court that fine, your child is too young for you to be held responsible for the child's action. That also makes the child by your admission too young to be left alone at home without proper supervision. So, do you really want to open up that can of worms?
As for the actual issue, are the pets owners responsible for the actions of the pet. Your link did nothing to address that issue now did it. You and others are side steeping the issue and focusing on the actions of the child.
IMHO the actions of the child should not be an issue, unless of course you want the child protective services involved in this case.
The owner of the pet are liable.
As for the driver taking off the time voluntarily, you have no argument from me, I think that speaks for itself. If UPS did indeed offer him work, and he refused, then he is not out any lost time. As for pain and suffering, that might be a different matter, but more than likely not worth going after.
d
Parental liability usually ends when the child reaches the AGE OF MAJORITY and does not begin until the child reaches an age of between eight and ten. Laws vary from state to state regarding the monetary thresholds on damages collected, the age limit of the child, and the inclusion of PERSONAL INJURY in the tort claim.
Each state has its own law regarding parents' financial responsibility for the acts of their children. Parents are responsible for their children's harmful actions much the same way that employers are responsible for the harmful actions of their employees. This legal concept is known a vicarious liability. The parent is vicariously liable, despite not being directly responsible for the injury. A number of states hold parents financially responsible for damages caused by their children. Some of these states, however, place limits on the amount of liability. The laws vary from state to state, but many cover such acts as VANDALISM to government or school property; defacement or destruction of the national and state flags, cemetery headstones, public monuments/historical markers; also, property destroyed in hate crimes, based on race or religion, such as ransacking a synagogue. Personal injury in connection with any of these may also be included."
Negligent Supervision<O></O
A parent is liable for a child's negligent acts if the parent knows or has reason to know that it is necessary to control the child and the parent fails to take reasonable actions to do so. This legal theory is known as negligent supervision. Liability for negligent supervision is not limited to parents. Grandparents, guardians, and others with CUSTODY and control of a child may also be liable under these circumstances. There is usually no dollar limit on this type of liability. An umbrella or homeowner's insurance policy may offer the adult some protection in a lawsuit
So what part of that is hard to understand?
In most cases the parent is liable for the actions of the child. The age of 8 is a magic number as you are well aware.
It would be my contention if you so desire to fight me in court that fine, your child is too young for you to be held responsible for the child's action. That also makes the child by your admission too young to be left alone at home without proper supervision. So, do you really want to open up that can of worms?
As for the actual issue, are the pets owners responsible for the actions of the pet. Your link did nothing to address that issue now did it. You and others are side steeping the issue and focusing on the actions of the child.
IMHO the actions of the child should not be an issue, unless of course you want the child protective services involved in this case.
The owner of the pet are liable.
As for the driver taking off the time voluntarily, you have no argument from me, I think that speaks for itself. If UPS did indeed offer him work, and he refused, then he is not out any lost time. As for pain and suffering, that might be a different matter, but more than likely not worth going after.
d
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Frankie dearest
Who is ganging up on whom?
It has been you that has misrepresented himself as a legal scholar, but yet you refuse to cite even one case that supports your claim. Why?
OH yes, I forgot, your time is too valuable to waste posting on some looser board, right? But yet we are supposed to trust everything out of your mouth? But yet you are either too stupid or inept to cite even once case that supports your stand? Even after being asked many times?
I would trust the hot air coming out of the south end of a north bound Susie, before I would trust anything you seem to support.
Best Regards
d
Who is ganging up on whom?
It has been you that has misrepresented himself as a legal scholar, but yet you refuse to cite even one case that supports your claim. Why?
OH yes, I forgot, your time is too valuable to waste posting on some looser board, right? But yet we are supposed to trust everything out of your mouth? But yet you are either too stupid or inept to cite even once case that supports your stand? Even after being asked many times?
I would trust the hot air coming out of the south end of a north bound Susie, before I would trust anything you seem to support.
Best Regards
d
W
Wonderboy
Guest
D boy's zero tolerance mindset can't distinguished the difference between a child opening the door to his house and a child who vandalizes government or school property; defaces or destroys national and state flags, cemetery headstones, or historical markers etc.
Please believe me...THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
Concerning parental control in this situation...Mommy was in the kitchen preparing a meal. Do you expect her to put the child on a leash whenever she leaves the front room?
If you want more specific information from me It will cost you. Do you deliver UPS packages when you are off the clock? Then why do you expect me to give you free information for this open and shut case.
tieguy keeps repeating himself that Parents are sued for the negligent acts of their children ALL THE TIME. So why can't either of you come up with a specific example where the parents of an 8 year old child are sued for that childs negligent behavior?
Fred
Please believe me...THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
Concerning parental control in this situation...Mommy was in the kitchen preparing a meal. Do you expect her to put the child on a leash whenever she leaves the front room?
If you want more specific information from me It will cost you. Do you deliver UPS packages when you are off the clock? Then why do you expect me to give you free information for this open and shut case.
tieguy keeps repeating himself that Parents are sued for the negligent acts of their children ALL THE TIME. So why can't either of you come up with a specific example where the parents of an 8 year old child are sued for that childs negligent behavior?
Fred
W
Wonderboy
Guest
the adult who was allegedly bitten
admitted an 8 year old child opened the door.
why all the hypotheticals?
Fred
admitted an 8 year old child opened the door.
why all the hypotheticals?
Fred
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Freddie sweetie
You are bogus. That is why you keep posting your personal opinion and not case history to back your claim.
If you were what you say you are, it would be so easy...... But then you are a fraud, arent you.
I guess that would make it the end of the story.
I would also guess in your mind you are?????????????
What a joke.
d
You are bogus. That is why you keep posting your personal opinion and not case history to back your claim.
If you were what you say you are, it would be so easy...... But then you are a fraud, arent you.
I guess that would make it the end of the story.
I would also guess in your mind you are?????????????
What a joke.
d
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
So you figure the free bull $hyte you have been passing off as knowledge is worth something?
Yeppers, that line has been around. Ill bet you told the girls you shagged back in school, dont worry, no one gets pregnant this way.
Its also another way of saying dont call my stupidity on this matter, cause I really dont know jack crap.
With what you have posted, what ever you have to say would be worthless, so why should it cost anything
d
W
Wonderboy
Guest
dannyboy said:
the burden of proof is on the plaintiff...that's you
Fred
W
Wonderboy
Guest
dboy has the makings of a good attorney
not that he knows anything but he
continues to stretch out the proceedings long
after he has lost
Fred
not that he knows anything but he
continues to stretch out the proceedings long
after he has lost
Fred
Got lucky today. Delivered a package to a customer who had his 2 dogs in the front yard. They seemed harmless, but one came behind me and nipped at my ankle. Tore a big hunk out of my UPS ankle sock. Didn't get my skin though. Actually, I should say the dog was lucky...
Similar threads
