I have no idea if this will work, but it's worth a try...

[wordinista]

I frequent a forum for owners of Australian Shepherds, and lovers of the breed.  It's a really great group of people, and I've learned a lot of helpful things from the board.  Tonight I found a plea that I can't help with, but I'm sending it out there with the hopes that someone might be able to help.

I don't know if anyone on my f-list can do anything, but this story is tearing at my heart.

Comments

The Evils of a Litigious Society

[hecallaghan.livejournal.com]

I find it absolutely amazing that you can have your dog labelled dangerous without it displaying dangerous behavior and doing no-one any physical harm. A dangerous dog would not be satisfied with just ripping a shirt.

And it's a *puppy*.

It sounds to me like these people who own the dog are being badly advised. The state has to prove that it is dangerous before it is labelled dangerous. And I don't see how it can.

Re: The Evils of a Litigious Society

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

I have no idea how Canadian law works, but this just smacks of "not-right." I mean, aside from the fact that I don't quite understand how the city can be "liable" if the dog is deemed "not dangerous" and then bites someone again. But considering that he didn't actually bite anyone -- he tore a shirt -- it's pretty ridiculous.

Re: The Evils of a Litigious Society

[vespurtine.livejournal.com]

The city is 'liable' because a previous incident was reported. Even if they could claim to have investigated and deemed the dog 'not dangerous', any lawyer could pounce on that and say that the city didn't investigate properly, or failed to take proper action, or what have you. What it comes down to is that a previous incident was reported, and afterwards the dog goes unrestricted and is able to attack/bite/whatever again.

People get away with suing for almost everything. Even if someone got bit and sued but didn't win, it would still cost the city a lot of money to go to court and defend.