Another stupid ruling. Back when people had common sense and respected personal accountability, there was “vicarious liability” meaning the owner was responsible for anything the animal did. I’d like to meet the idiot who came up with “the first bite is free” concept. Even if its the only bite, it still injured someone and someone should have to compensate. Why punish the negligence free victim? Seems to fly in the face of “justice”. (a concept our legal system lost sight of long ago.)Same goes for causing physical damage. Let’s follow this illogic to its next phase. No person should be found liable for murder unless they have a “history”.
gotta side with Jester on this one, not that I agree with his arguments, but I just find it hard to believe this dog was strong enough to break his leash, but had not exhibited that behavior, even just once, in the past. I’m sure the dog really had to sweat it out during it’s deposition…”ok canine, bark once if you like to break for it whenever you can and had done so prior to knocking billy off his bike…and lick your butt if you had never broken your leash before and only thought billy was a runaway squirrel.”
Seriously, how to you convince a judge of this? I would expect an appeal. And I’m a pro-defense guy!
Deep breath. This country is full of rights and wrongs. We can choose to spend the rest of our existence in courts or continue to use some level of common sense. Sometimes things happend.
First free bite is common sense. The opposite is strict liability and anyone whom has studied anything concerning the law of torts will know that stricty liability is reserved for more extreme circumstances. The ownership of a “pet” lion, for instance, would invoke strict liability and there should and would be no first bite exception. Lions are known to be inherently dangerous. Liaibilty is generally imposed by behaviour that is contrary to what a “prudent person” would do under same / similar circumstances. That is by nature a moving target, as is life.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Another stupid ruling. Back when people had common sense and respected personal accountability, there was “vicarious liability” meaning the owner was responsible for anything the animal did. I’d like to meet the idiot who came up with “the first bite is free” concept. Even if its the only bite, it still injured someone and someone should have to compensate. Why punish the negligence free victim? Seems to fly in the face of “justice”. (a concept our legal system lost sight of long ago.)Same goes for causing physical damage. Let’s follow this illogic to its next phase. No person should be found liable for murder unless they have a “history”.
Jester — Decaf?
gotta side with Jester on this one, not that I agree with his arguments, but I just find it hard to believe this dog was strong enough to break his leash, but had not exhibited that behavior, even just once, in the past. I’m sure the dog really had to sweat it out during it’s deposition…”ok canine, bark once if you like to break for it whenever you can and had done so prior to knocking billy off his bike…and lick your butt if you had never broken your leash before and only thought billy was a runaway squirrel.”
Seriously, how to you convince a judge of this? I would expect an appeal. And I’m a pro-defense guy!
Deep breath. This country is full of rights and wrongs. We can choose to spend the rest of our existence in courts or continue to use some level of common sense. Sometimes things happend.
I believe that the “first bite” rule arises from the theory of forseeability, a critical part of the determination of negligence in most states.
First free bite is common sense. The opposite is strict liability and anyone whom has studied anything concerning the law of torts will know that stricty liability is reserved for more extreme circumstances. The ownership of a “pet” lion, for instance, would invoke strict liability and there should and would be no first bite exception. Lions are known to be inherently dangerous. Liaibilty is generally imposed by behaviour that is contrary to what a “prudent person” would do under same / similar circumstances. That is by nature a moving target, as is life.