Therefore, my entire complaint is the very nature of the laws themselves, and this particular case surrounding the exercise of those laws. My complaint about these laws extends way beyond the boundaries of this particular case out to every lame-brain trying to hold other people accountable for their stupidity, whether it's a dog bite, a home-loan gone bad, a spilled cup of coffee, or any of a million other cases of stupid behavior where the responsible party manages to make someone else the blame. And the juries made up of people just like you guys who find in favor of said lame-brains. THAT is my argument and my complaint. And as I have said before, but I'm sure was ignored, (except of course to make accusations of things I didn't say) I only wish with everything I am that you all get to fall victim of your own (il)logic. I hope some uninvited solicitor trips and breaks his leg on your front porch. I hope someone tail-ends you and claims your brake lights weren't working. No, I wish no physical harm on any of you, but I do hope you get to experience the feeling of being held accountable for something you had no real control over. It's the only way you'll ever figure it out.
The dogs owner didn't lock the gate. He could have LOCKED the gate, but he didn't. He knew he had a potentially vicious dog. HE didn't lock the freakin' gate! As a dog owner who cares for my animals, irresponsible dog owners really tick me off. Because he didn't LOCK the gate, to keep curious children out, he created an attractive nuisance, which has been prohibited under law for longer than either of us has been alive.
quote
There is normally no particular care required of property owners to safeguard trespassers from harm, but an attractive nuisance is an exception. An attractive nuisance is any inherently hazardous object or condition of property that can be expected to attract children to investigate or play (for example, construction sites and discarded large appliances). The doctrine imposes upon the property owner either the duty to take precautions that are reasonable in light of the normal behavior of young children--a much higher degree of care than required toward adults--or the same care as that owed to "invitees"--a higher standard than required toward uninvited, casual visitors (licensees).
Edited to add: I guess I own page six of this ridiculous argument. I predict that it will soon end up where it belongs, in the trash can.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 03-31-2008).]
IP: Logged
07:11 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Having just a latch the dog is more than capable of opening it him/herself. No one saw who opened the gate so it could have been the DOG who opened it.
That happens in our barn on more than one occasion here if we do not put those clips in the latches when we go in and out of the kennels when cleaning and such.
NO ONE SAW WHO OPENED THE GATE, WHO’S TO SAY IT WASN’T THE DOG.
How do you know no one saw who opened the gate? I don't believe for a second that you actually think the dog opened the gate when there were kids around. Remember? Those little bastions of irresponsible behavior that everyone else is supposed to be responsible for? (Uh, except the parents that is...)
I'm going to Wal-Mart and get a lock for my gate. I'd hate it if my sheep dog and Del-Ray Stubby got out and did something. I'll get some beware of dog signs too. I never knew that I was such an irresponsible owner
IP: Logged
07:26 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
How do you know no one saw who opened the gate? I don't believe for a second that you actually think the dog opened the gate when there were kids around. Remember? Those little bastions of irresponsible behavior that everyone else is supposed to be responsible for? (Uh, except the parents that is...)
How do you know it wasn’t the dog?
I already have shown that the dogs can very easily open those latches, that you say in a previous post constitutes locking the gate.
I'm going to Wal-Mart and get a lock for my gate. I'd hate it if my sheep dog and Del-Ray Stubby got out and did something. I'll get some beware of dog signs too. I never knew that I was such an irresponsible owner
Yeah, and especially if some kid comes along and opens the gate and lets the dogs out. Then you're not just irresponsible. You're a criminal. Oh, and don't forget the registration and insurance, that could help prevent something like this from happening!
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 03-31-2008).]
IP: Logged
07:35 PM
Cadillac Jack Member
Posts: 1165 From: Jacksonville, IL, USA Registered: May 2003
This is the first post I remember seeing about it. Anyone know who made it: "What constitutes a locked gate (It's not specified that it actually has to have a "lock") As in these particular definitions of the word "lock": b: to fix in a particular situation or method of operation. 3 a: to make fast, motionless, or inflexible especially by the interlacing or interlocking of parts If I have a gate with a latch, and the latch is engaged, then I would consider that gate locked. Especially if there's a pit bull on the other side of it. " I'm curios though, what makes a "latched" gate with a Pit Bull behind it more or less "locked"? What if there was a poodle behind it? Is the concept progressive? Would a tiger make it barred and welded? Would a gold fish make it be standing open? I guess that depends on what the definition of "gold fish" is.
I'm going to Wal-Mart and get a lock for my gate. I'd hate it if my sheep dog and Del-Ray Stubby got out and did something. I'll get some beware of dog signs too. I never knew that I was such an irresponsible owner
Decent idea. Small investment for peace of mind.
IP: Logged
07:45 PM
Cadillac Jack Member
Posts: 1165 From: Jacksonville, IL, USA Registered: May 2003
I made that original post about three pages ago. It hasn't been mentioned since. You guys are really digging.
You asked. Thought I'd help you out. It was a long time ago, how much time do you think will pass before it completely becomes completely irrelevant or non existant?
IP: Logged
07:49 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
And as I have said before, but I'm sure was ignored, (except of course to make accusations of things I didn't say) I only wish with everything I am that you all get to fall victim of your own (il)logic. I hope some uninvited solicitor trips and breaks his leg on your front porch. I hope someone tail-ends you and claims your brake lights weren't working. No, I wish no physical harm on any of you, but I do hope you get to experience the feeling of being held accountable for something you had no real control over. It's the only way you'll ever figure it out.
Thanks for your concern but don't worry about it. I've got liability insurance and I make a reasonable effort to see these things don't happen. I'll be fine.
*sigh* Do you really think finding that law is going to "end this"? In what way? You're missing the fact that the definition of the latch being locked or latched is completely irrelevant to the discussion. If you go back a few posts to the summary, you might understand why. For like the one hundredth time, I'm not arguing the laws existence or technical definitions of the law. That makes about one hundred and one. Besides, if you are tired of the "discussion" that's taking place here, then feel free not to contribute.It's OK, really. Otherwise, if you're going to keep coming in and perpetuating it, stop complaining. Or is it my fault that you can't stay out of this thread? Should I put a lock on it?
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 03-31-2008).]
IP: Logged
07:57 PM
Cadillac Jack Member
Posts: 1165 From: Jacksonville, IL, USA Registered: May 2003
Jack go back one page and look at the pictures I posted of my own kennel latches, they are just that latches and easily opened by a dog or child.
At the moment I am trying to access the Ohio state dog laws on the net, but it keeps coming up page not found to try and end this.
You're not going to end this. The best you can do is enjoy it while it lasts. I saw the pictures, I know how latches work and how locks work and I know the difference, as uneducated as I am. LOL
And as I have said before, but I'm sure was ignored, (except of course to make accusations of things I didn't say) I only wish with everything I am that you all get to fall victim of your own (il)logic. I hope some uninvited solicitor trips and breaks his leg on your front porch. I hope someone tail-ends you and claims your brake lights weren't working. No, I wish no physical harm on any of you, but I do hope you get to experience the feeling of being held accountable for something you had no real control over. It's the only way you'll ever figure it out.
Wow I love Ron white!
If I was as "logical" as you think you are I'd say something along the lines of" I hope your dog gets its maul on some little girl and you get shafted and reamed legally and civilly. But I don't want anyone to get hurt. ( except that little girl but I don't want any one to get hurt)." Or " I hope you have a little girl that mauls by a dog" You know I don't want any one to get hurt. ( except your little girl to learn you a lesson).
That dogs owner did have control. He could have locked his gate.
[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 03-31-2008).]
Man, you guys really are scratching for a perch, aren't you? That's the best you can do? They're called "examples", or scenarios. No one necessarily has to get hurt for the situations to happen, those were just "examples". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/example just in case you need some help. Do you really think trying to manipulate my words to your convenience is actually helping your position? You guys are worse than politicians.
IP: Logged
08:14 PM
Cadillac Jack Member
Posts: 1165 From: Jacksonville, IL, USA Registered: May 2003
Man, you guys really are scratching for a perch, aren't you? That's the best you can do? They're called "examples", or scenarios. No one necessarily has to get hurt for the situations to happen, those were just "examples". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/example just in case you need some help. Do you really think trying to manipulate my words to your convenience is actually helping your position? You guys are worse than politicians.
Not me. I've got my perch and it's as solid as a lock on a gate. I'm not worried about "examples". Chewed up little girls is another matter.
Man, you guys really are scratching for a perch, aren't you? That's the best you can do? They're called "examples", or scenarios. No one necessarily has to get hurt for the situations to happen, those were just "examples". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/example just in case you need some help. Do you really think trying to manipulate my words to your convenience is actually helping your position? You guys are worse than politicians.
Maybe you should stop contradicting your self with these "examples". Examples don't have precursors of "wish" and/or "hope" in front of them. That negates them as "examples" and makes them hopes and wishes. But you in all your logic knew that already.........
Oh, well gee. I guess that's it then. You win. Oh wait, huh. I still feel the same. Sorry, guess you don't.
So do you want to actually discuss the topic, or is it just easier to insist that I meant something I specifically said I didn't? I guess you don't recognize how lame that is.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 03-31-2008).]
Oh, well gee. I guess that's it then. You win. Oh wait, huh. I still feel the same. Sorry, guess you don't.
So do you want to actually discuss the topic, or is it just easier to insist that I meant something I specifically said I didn't? I guess you don't recognize how lame that is.
What is left to discuss? You have been schooled throwout this thread in every aspect of the discussion. You in all your logic have already said the dog owner did everything to ensure his killer breed dog wouldn't hurt anyone ......well except lock a gate. And then in all your logic said you wished people would get hurt but not hurt. With your utter failure to grasp common grammer fundamentals and give others a dictionary link in a vain effort to look as logical as you think you are there isn't much more to do but expose more of your flawed arguments.
Schooled. Yes, I've been schooled. And oh what things I've learned.
Yes, the masses are always right. Just ask Jesus.
There, I'm sure you can turn that into something it isn't because that's easy.
LOL yes equate your self Jesus LOL I don't have to twist or turn anything with that one. LOL Have you learned the difference between a locked and latched gate? Have you learned that owners of animals are responsible for their animals? Have you learned that saying you wish people would get hurt does in fact mean you wish people get hurt?
Don't think I've posted here, but mighthave early on--may I join in?
Joint liability IMO. Parents should watch their children---CLOSELY!! And educate them. But, the burden is almost always 'mostly' on the person who owns or has control of the dangerous-(or potentially dangerous) property or situation.
If this were a swimming pool, and a tresspassing child had climbed over a tall locked gate, and drowned as a result, the pool owner would likely be found without blame--and rightfully so. The owner had taken all reasonable measures to make the pool as safe as possible.
If the child had tresspassed, and entered thru the gate, by unlatching the latch, the pool owner would very likely find himself in deep liability. He had taken 'some' measures to assure safety, but not all that would normally be deemed 'reasonable'. The lock is the key to keeping the pool owner from liability.
The same holds true in this case. The dog is fenced in, probably in an adequately high fence and gate, and with a gate which is shut and latched. But it is not locked. The child tresspasses, opens the gate and the dog bites her for whatever reason.
If the breed was different, say anything other than pit bull, doberman, Rotweilor, I would be inclined to find the parent mostly responsible, but with virtually the entire dog related world aware of the hype and news stories regarding pit bulls, the ower should have well understood his/her obligation to take every measure humanely possible (within reason) to ensure no one could get to the animal. That means a lock--plain and simple. It is his best insurance from liability and tragedy.
If a man puts his pistol in a gun cabinet, and does not lock it, he is asking for trouble. If a child gets to the pistol, and hurts itself or someone else, the very 1st thing the gun owner's attorney will ask him is "Why do you not keep your firearm locked up?"
It is a shame the dog was put down. It paid the price for the 'owners' mistake. Ask the dog owner today what he would have done differently if he could go back in time, and I promise you, the 1st words out of his mouth will be "Lock and key".
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-31-2008).]
Why does it piss you off so much that I don't agree with the mob?
Perhaps it is because the caretaker of the animal evidently does/did not agree with "the mob" at the time either, and as a result, the animal lost it's life, a young person injured, and the animals caretaker may well be facing civil liability in a court case.
If you still feel the same way, after all this discussion, it probably means at least a few other people do too, and that probably means danger still lurks in neighborhoods wherever those opinions prevail.
If i were your dog, I'd sneak out and go buy you a lock.
IP: Logged
11:05 PM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A 6-year-old girl was hospitalized on Wednesday evening after she was attacked by a dog on the city's far east side. The girl was attacked at about 5 p.m. in front of a home on Upton Road West, 10TV's Kevin Landers reported. Witnesses told 10TV News that an open gate allowed the Pit Bull to escape a back yard, Landers reported. Neighbors said the girl was missing part of her lip after the attack. They also said she suffered bites to her face and arms, Landers reported. Jason Cather said that the girl's father managed to get the dog back in its yard. "The father came out and grabbed it underneath its jaw bone," Cather said. "He pushed it up and pushed it in the back yard." The girl was taken to Nationwide Children's Hospital, where she was treated and released, 10TV News reported. Animal Care and Control authorities removed the dog from the home after they determined that it was not licensed, Landers reported. Watch 10TV News and refresh 10TV.com for additional information.
10. Keep your dog properly confined. Pit Bulls are known to be great escape artist. Make sure you have the means to keep them in your yard and properly confined. Installing a six foot privacy fence is not a bad idea either. Responsible ownership starts from the time your Pit Bull comes to live with you. Irresponsible owner's are one of the major causes for all the problems the breed faces today. It's our hope here at Pit Bull Lovers we can spread the word and educate more owners to take responsibility for their dogs actions.
In order for things to change, we must change the way we look at our own actions and how they effect the world around us. Until we do that, things will simply stay the way they are now.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-01-2008).]
IP: Logged
12:10 AM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
About what? This is a circular conversation at this point with you guys ignoring the same things, me still not agreeing, and what's more, not caring if you guys agree with me or not. I'm still trying to figure out why you guys care so much whether I agree with you or not. And none of you can explain that part. I still think it's BS, and all the badgering in the world isn't going to change my mind. Just because there are more of you expressing opinions that oppose mine, doesn't make you "right", and it sure isn't compelling enough to make me reconsider.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 04-01-2008).]
Originally posted by Taijiguy: About what? This is a circular conversation at this point with you guys ignoring the same things, me still not agreeing, and what's more, not caring if you guys agree with me or not. I'm still trying to figure out why you guys care so much whether I agree with you or not. And none of you can explain that part. I still think it's BS, and all the badgering in the world isn't going to change my mind. Just because there are more of you expressing opinions that oppose mine, doesn't make you "right", and it sure isn't compelling enough to make me reconsider.
The girl was attacked at about 5 p.m. in front of a home on Upton Road West, 10TV's Kevin Landers reported. Witnesses told 10TV News that an open gate allowed the Pit Bull to escape a back yard, Landers reported.
The kid never went into the yard the pit bull was in, it walked out an unlocked gate. Responsibility home owner.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 04-01-2008).]
IP: Logged
09:34 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33232 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by JazzMan: The way I see it there are two kinds of people. Those that think that promoting safety in our society is a good thing are the ones that obey the law the majority of the time. They stop at red lights and stop signs, they actively seek to reduce or eliminate things within their control that can affect the safety of others, and they work to make our society a better place to live.
The other kind of people think that laws don't apply to them. They break and ignore any law they disagree with as part of their pattern of living in our society. They'll leave a broken bottle on their sidewalk because they believe it's a kid and their parent's responsibility to avoid stepping on it and getting a cut, then get mad when they get sued for medical costs even though they weren't the one that broke the bottle. They run stop signs and red lights, speed in school zones (unless they see a cop), etc, etc. JazzMan
An interesting concept but I think you're leaving a whole lot of folks out, our society is not made up of totally black/white (good/bad) issues on any front. I also believe that there is a position where one agrees to follow the law even though they disagree with it. Not real sure where that puts me but I can live with it either way.
I am going to have to say something here, but reluctantly, because a lot of my friends here are arguing amongst themselves, and I regret that.I have reviewed my opinion, and my reasons for arriving at that opinion. 1. There are too any moot points and half-truths in all the media reports...as usual. I read a link, and I am HANGED if I can find it now, that said there was a group of chidren playing outside the owner's property, and that one child had opened the gate. Kids daring each other, as I surmised before, is a familiar event when children play together, unsupervised.I can´t prove that that was what happened, but it is WELL within the realms of likelihood. After all, school playgrounds are supervised at ALL times, so why expect otherwise from parents when their children are not in school?? Might it not be a pervert, or drug peddler next time? 2. I can´t say, and neither can anybody else, whether the gate was latched, as opposed to locked. I wasn´t aware of the Laws in that area, and can see the logic of them. I can therefore accept that the owner was probably at fault, if the gate was NOT locked, as the law specifies. 3. There are no reports of the dog having escaped before, and let's be honest, had it have done so, the Media, and neighbours, would bring that up immediately. They ddn´t, and that leads me to believe this was the first instance.Surmising that to be true, and the fact that the one time the dog DID escape, and harm somebody, was when children were playing nearby, and one of them was bitten,I believe the children had MORE than a little involvement in the dog getting free. 4. We are all arguing over points that cannot, or have not, been established.Here, we have latches that are impossible for dogs, or any other animal, to open, unless it uses two paws together , without it actually being a 'lock'..However I now believe there IS culpability on the owner's behalf, having read everything being posted here,regarding Laws etc. But, and I stress this, RESPONSIBILTY for minors is 24/7. No excuse.IMHO. 5. This didn´t happen in a place miles from the child's home.It seems to be a neighbour's dog.I can´t believe the parents weren´t aware of it, and , as it is supposed to be a dangerous breed of dog, that they had not warned the child NOT to go near, or even kept a closer eye on where their child was. 6. The injuries sustained, although painful, were nowhere NEAR as bad as they could have been, which leads me to possibly believe the dog was'playing', rather than full-out attacking.But that doesn´t alter the fact that it did harm the child. 7. I have no faith in people being honest about what happened, as far as the injured parties are concerned. I know damned well they would not admit to even 1% of it being their, or their child's fault .ESPECIALLY if they can smell a profitable lawsuit at the end of it all. 8. I believe that the owner should be punished for any transgression of the Law he appears to have made, but I don´t believe the plaintiffs should financially profit from it. We protect in excess, the stupid and careless and irresponsible , and reward them for being so. My assessment of culpability stands as such: 50% parents, 10% the child's, and 40% dog owner. For what it is worth Nick PS James, your answer to my points was impeccable in its manner, as always..thanks, even though we choose not to agree 100% , if at all Nick Nick
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-01-2008).]
IP: Logged
10:45 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 33232 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
