First Application of Lillian's Law for dog attacks (Austin: lawyer, house)

[verybadgnome]

From the sound of it the owner was extremely negligent and I think should be help accountable. If you can afford a dog you should be able to purchase/repair a fence that adequately contains them, not just for others safety but for the dogs too. And he knew the dogs were dangerous:

"Welton said he had never seen his dogs attack anyone, though according to testimony they had killed another dog when they got out the month before the attack on Hernandez."

Austin man guilty in dogs' Christmas attack

[JayBrown80]

Hmmm...given the fact that all 3 cases of criminal negligence with an animal winding thru the Travis county court system right now ALL INVOLVE PIT BULLS, I wonder how long before this becomes a pit bull thread.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Hmmm...given the fact that all 3 cases of criminal negligence with an animal winding thru the Travis county court system right now ALL INVOLVE PIT BULLS, I wonder how long before this becomes a pit bull thread.

Hopefully the thread doesn't go that direction since this applies to all dog breeds.

[Aquitaine]

The Pit Bull Branding and Marketing Association just needs to come up with a fluffier name. They should take a pointer from whomever named, say, tree frogs. 'Oh, that's not a pit bull. That's a Porch Poodle.'

[Dr.Mom]

The last statement in the article:

Attorney Ellie Ruth, who defended Welton, said that charging dog owners for the conduct of their pet is unfair.
"I think it's a very dangerous precedent to set to expose dog owners to criminal liability for basically their dogs getting out of their yard."

This COMPLETELY baffles me. As a former dog owner, I always felt that my dog was my responsibility at all times. Even when at the vet or kennel, I still bore some degree of responsibility for him because it was my job to teach him to act properly in all situations. Sorry, but this defendant should be in jail for being so thoroughly negligent.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

From the sound of it the owner was extremely negligent and I think should be help accountable. If you can afford a dog you should be able to purchase/repair a fence that adequately contains them, not just for others safety but for the dogs too. And he knew the dogs were dangerous:

"Welton said he had never seen his dogs attack anyone, though according to testimony they had killed another dog when they got out the month before the attack on Hernandez."

Austin man guilty in dogs' Christmas attack

Actually the article says he did try to repair the fence. Unfortunately the dogs still got out during his absence. That could happen to anyone in spite of reasonable efforts to contain them, but he is still the party responsible. The City bears some responsibility for this by making it illegal to tether a dog.

Welton said he had previously tethered the dogs in his backyard but stopped after city officials told him tying up unattended dogs is illegal in Austin.
Welton said he had never seen his dogs attack anyone, though according to testimony they had killed another dog when they got out the month before the attack on Hernandez.
After retrieving his dogs from the animal shelter, Welton said he repaired holes in his fence and locked the gate.

[OpenD]

This is absurdly simple...

If you want to own animals, you are responsible for them.

If you don't want the responsibility, don't own them.

[owlman]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Actually the article says he did try to repair the fence. Unfortunately the dogs still got out during his absence. That could happen to anyone in spite of reasonable efforts to contain them

Yeah but despite what he claims the judge found that he did not actually make reasonable efforts to secure the dogs.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Actually the article says he did try to repair the fence. Unfortunately the dogs still got out during his absence. That could happen to anyone in spite of reasonable efforts to contain them, but he is still the party responsible. The City bears some responsibility for this by making it illegal to tether a dog.

Maybe you should tell the victim it's okay that the owner get off because he "tried" to repair the fence. How about the auto mechanic that "tried" to fix the brakes on your car? Sorry if "try" was a valid excuse for everything then we'd have a society with no accountability and negligence would be acceptable behavior.

And if the owner is only partly responsible who shares the other part? The victim? God?

And I disagree with you on tethering, besides the studies that have been done my impression is that they dogs are not only unhappy at being tethered but are more aggressive because of it.

[chuck_steak]

I've seen dogs tethered in Austin. In fact, I know a lawyer who tethers his dog in the front yard. Wonder why it's illegal here? That would have solved everything. Either that, or put the dog in the house during your absence.