Well, when you basically phrase it like \”how could she not have seen a GREAT DANE?\” it sounds a little accusatory. Kind of like when someone hits a deer and someone asks the same thing. How could you not SEE a deer? Well, when they come from out of nowhere it makes it hard to foresee don\’t you think?
Did anyone think to view the situation from the dog\’s point? Hugging & kissing is a human emotion. I\’m sure the dog percieved it as an agressive move against his owner and reacted accordingly. Or maybe she \”invaded\” the dogs space?
In fact according to the article
\”Weidenhaft said she thinks the Great Dane reacted to his owner\’s surprise when she leaned in for the hug.\”
Again the victim did not press charges or try to have the dog put down. She is mearly trying to change the current law that \”does not hold the owner of a normally friendly dog liable for damages after a first-time attack.\” Keep in mind that dog owners would retain defenses such as provocation of the dog.
This is yet another example of people on this site blaiming the victim. Are you people saying a dog owner shouldn\’t be responsible for the damage their pet does?????
This woman did not ask for the dog to be put down, she didn\’t seek some huge settlement, and yet you still try to come up with some reason to call her stupid.
Good point, Jeff. Don\’t really think anyone thinks the owner should not be responsible for actions of the dog, but I guess the rest kind of got lost in the translation.
I\’m suprised there isn\’t a seperate insurance offered for pets. Not just for instances like this, but also for the medical costs pets can accure over time. I know there are some forms of it, but I don\’t know how common it is used or accepted at animal hospitals.
And as much as I hate to discriminate against certain breeds. I think if you take on the responsibility of breeds that are known to be a bit more dangerous, you should need to carry some sort of liability insurance in case of situations like this.
\”The dog\’s owner, a friend of Weidenhaft\’s, paid $5,000 through her insurance company, but didn\’t have to.\”
Through HER insurance company tom. Not some beer drinking, cell phone talking man. HER means woman. Oh, you\’re welcome. I didn\’t mind pointing that out to you. Way to stereotype truck drivers though. (No, I don\’t drive a truck, but if I tell you what kind of car I drive will you stereotype me too tom?)
I guess Bob is from one of the nanny states where government is involved at every turn, because adults can\’t be trusted to act responsibly or to determine what risks we knowingly want to take on.
Oregon is one of several states that follows the rule that liability can\’t be placed on a dog owner for the first bite when the dog is not otherwise known to have vicious tendencies. Whether or not the majority of states follow this rule I can\’t say, but it would not surprise me if that were the case.
While I certainly sympathize with the victim, it also doesn\’t surprise me how easily people gloss over the real point, which is whether a dog owner should be held liable for the actions of its dog that causes injury to someone when the person\’s dog has never tried to bite anyone before.
Of course, there are always those that see a \”victim\” in every situation, refusing to make people responsible for their own actions.
Everyone knows any dog can bite under the right circumstances. The injured person here said she didn\’t see the Great Dane before sticking her head in, yet the dog was close enough to attack her once she got her head inside. Any reasonable person has to question this, but I\’m not saying I don\’t believe her. It just means that she wasn\’t paying a lot of attention, and she has tragically paid the price.
The possible response that is being proposed sounds reasonable to me, as it at least doesn\’t go overboard. However, I would change it by saying that any liability for medical expenses would be applied secondary to any bills not paid by health insurance.
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.
My point was stated in my post.
…….
I thought it was odd. That\’s all.
Well, when you basically phrase it like \”how could she not have seen a GREAT DANE?\” it sounds a little accusatory. Kind of like when someone hits a deer and someone asks the same thing. How could you not SEE a deer? Well, when they come from out of nowhere it makes it hard to foresee don\’t you think?
Did anyone think to view the situation from the dog\’s point? Hugging & kissing is a human emotion. I\’m sure the dog percieved it as an agressive move against his owner and reacted accordingly. Or maybe she \”invaded\” the dogs space?
The Victim is not blaming the dog.
In fact according to the article
\”Weidenhaft said she thinks the Great Dane reacted to his owner\’s surprise when she leaned in for the hug.\”
Again the victim did not press charges or try to have the dog put down. She is mearly trying to change the current law that \”does not hold the owner of a normally friendly dog liable for damages after a first-time attack.\” Keep in mind that dog owners would retain defenses such as provocation of the dog.
This is yet another example of people on this site blaiming the victim. Are you people saying a dog owner shouldn\’t be responsible for the damage their pet does?????
This woman did not ask for the dog to be put down, she didn\’t seek some huge settlement, and yet you still try to come up with some reason to call her stupid.
Good point, Jeff. Don\’t really think anyone thinks the owner should not be responsible for actions of the dog, but I guess the rest kind of got lost in the translation.
I agree, too, Jeff.
I\’m suprised there isn\’t a seperate insurance offered for pets. Not just for instances like this, but also for the medical costs pets can accure over time. I know there are some forms of it, but I don\’t know how common it is used or accepted at animal hospitals.
And as much as I hate to discriminate against certain breeds. I think if you take on the responsibility of breeds that are known to be a bit more dangerous, you should need to carry some sort of liability insurance in case of situations like this.
\”The dog\’s owner, a friend of Weidenhaft\’s, paid $5,000 through her insurance company, but didn\’t have to.\”
Through HER insurance company tom. Not some beer drinking, cell phone talking man. HER means woman. Oh, you\’re welcome. I didn\’t mind pointing that out to you. Way to stereotype truck drivers though. (No, I don\’t drive a truck, but if I tell you what kind of car I drive will you stereotype me too tom?)
I guess Bob is from one of the nanny states where government is involved at every turn, because adults can\’t be trusted to act responsibly or to determine what risks we knowingly want to take on.
Oregon is one of several states that follows the rule that liability can\’t be placed on a dog owner for the first bite when the dog is not otherwise known to have vicious tendencies. Whether or not the majority of states follow this rule I can\’t say, but it would not surprise me if that were the case.
While I certainly sympathize with the victim, it also doesn\’t surprise me how easily people gloss over the real point, which is whether a dog owner should be held liable for the actions of its dog that causes injury to someone when the person\’s dog has never tried to bite anyone before.
Of course, there are always those that see a \”victim\” in every situation, refusing to make people responsible for their own actions.
Everyone knows any dog can bite under the right circumstances. The injured person here said she didn\’t see the Great Dane before sticking her head in, yet the dog was close enough to attack her once she got her head inside. Any reasonable person has to question this, but I\’m not saying I don\’t believe her. It just means that she wasn\’t paying a lot of attention, and she has tragically paid the price.
The possible response that is being proposed sounds reasonable to me, as it at least doesn\’t go overboard. However, I would change it by saying that any liability for medical expenses would be applied secondary to any bills not paid by health insurance.
Sensible and practical approach to the proposed law. Good post.