Comments on: Dog bites taxpayers

By: markm

markm — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:15:18 +0000

How can this case survive an appeal, considering the case where Washington, DC, was held not liable for never responding to multiple phone calls in an apartment building as someone broke in and raped them over several hours? It’s not enough to say there was an ordinance that wasn’t enforced – I’m sure DC has ordinances against break-ins and rape.

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:01:32 +0000

It’s depressingly clear from the jury’s comments that they had a poor understanding of their role. They seemed to think it was their job to decide “how badly this woman was attacked” and how much money she should get – not where the liability should land. Picture of mangled arm? Give money! That, I fear, is the amoeba-like mental process of too many jurors.

The municipal culpability for “loose dogs” is sometimes pursued on a “negligent maintenance of the premises” idea, which also underlies the cause of action against a landlord for crimes committed on the property. Judges should stop this too-creative attempt to make social pathology into the equivalent of a broken sidewalk.

And another thing: we’re in damnded-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t territory again. Had the city impounded or killed the dogs — another lawsuit.

And another thing: what’s with all the killer dogs running loose these days? Once again, it seems we’re subjecting America’s increasingly Third-World living conditions to First-World legal standards and systems. It’s not a good match. The solution, clearly, is to lower our legal standards and systems to that of the Third World.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:51:19 +0000

“The victim wasn’t attacked by the dogs because of the policy”

This obviously faulty logic is so common here. If the city had not had its dog control ordinance, no sane person would walk its streets. People would all stay indoors, moving only between buildings with secure garages. Who would risk being bitten or stepping int a pile of…

Of course, then someone would be going after the city for not trying to prevent global warming what with the extra driving and methane from all the dog …

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:36:32 +0000

Two questions:

1) Were the dogs put down?

2) Is the owner of the dogs subject to criminal liability?

By: Richard A Harrison

Richard A Harrison — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:04:01 +0000

Under Florida sovereign immunity law, however, the City is only liable for $100,000 . . . if it is liable at all. It is highly unlikely that this verdict will withstand an appeal, at least as against the City.

(I’m Board Certified in City, County & Local Gov’t Law by the Florida Bar)

By: Offended - well, sort of . . .

Offended - well, sort of . . . — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:14:23 +0000

Sorry, This is slightly off the amrk, but it is an issue which has bothered me for a long time. You reference “trial lawyers.” By that you mean plaintiff’s counsel who file lawsuits of questionable merit. But why call them “trial lawyers”? Generally speaking, at least half of all lawyers in any given lawsuit represent the defense. In fact, given the propensity of these plaintiff’s counsel to sue several parties in the hope of hitting a deep pocket, there are typically several defense lawyers to every plaintiff’s lawyer in these cases.

I am a trial lawyer, but I don’t think my use of the term has the same meaning as yours. I generally represent plaintiffs – both business plaintiffs ( in collection cases) and consumers (in consumer fraud cases). But I can’t tell for sure whether I am a “trial lawyer” under your seemingly derogatory definition.

Can’t we come up with a better term which doesn’t denegrate litigators as a whole?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:06:31 +0000

I would say this could be used as justification to ban “dangerous” dog breeds, but it would seem that cities could still end up on the hook for “not enforcing” the ban, if someone violated the ban, even without the cities knowledge.