Dog Attacks + Liability

I don't know who you are, but thank you for reminding me the difference between a CITIZEN and a civilian.

According to this logic, if I rent a car, drive drunk, and kill a pedestrian Hertz would be liable. Hopefully this idiocy stays in Maryland.

no, I think your blowing this WAY out of proportion, you don't have to be drunk.

We have a zillion laws that prohibit the ownership, purchase, and carry of an inanimate object with no will of their own, and without human interaction would just be paper weights (even though the 2A has been deemed and individual right). But in the name of "freedom" it's ok form someone to own several large animals (sometimes larger than they are) with the capacity to ravage a human-being with out owner interaction involved.

The same crowd will stand up and say they should be allowed to own several 150 wild animals but will call me a monster for a 22 rifle. I'm more wary of pit bull owners than gun owners. When you deem it acceptable for government to tighten the noose around others for their practices of law abiding liberty, don't bitch about it when it happens to you. You have set the precedent that it's ok to restrict a person's liberty due to mod mentality think on the subject.

mob mentality, stupid phone!

You're a monster with a .22 rifle!

...don't bitch about it when it happens to you.

And the real problem is: he won't. People like this actually want someone else to run their lives for them; they want less responsibility, fewer decisions and a tighter box.

Give me Betsy in a shoulder rig along with my blade and six clips of ammo, and I'll feel safer in the midst of a bunch of drug dealing, white man hating black gang bangers than I will dealing with the government, long distance from Thailand.

Make that pit bull owning, drug dealing... et al.

My ONLY issue is with making the landlord liable. "and the owner of a pit bull or a cross-bred pit that attacks is strictly liable for damages, "as is any landlord who rents to a Pitbull owner", or for brilliants sake, all dogs.

"as is any landlord who rents to a Pitbull owner" and some want to add all dogs.

1 more time

"as is any landlord who rents to a Pitbull owner." and some want to add all dogs.

Are you kidding me? ONLY one other person besides me has an issue with this?

What about Companies holding the mortgages, why do they get a free ride? They also choose who they give the loans to!

Shouldn't landlords then be able to mandate video cameras in their properties to ENSURE tenants don't bring "inherently dangerous" animals onto the property, making them liable?

What is the law concerning landlords and renting to "inherently dangerous" people? Lets get some real work done here!

Lets not stop there, hell, lets start making everyone in the neighborhood liable for the for the dogs. Make the entire neighborhood liable for the criminal activity that goes on too! Someone gets robbed, the entire neighborhood gets sued. Victims can sue entire blocks for pain and suffering as well as loss of quality of life.

And I quote "If anything it would have slum/landlords paying a little more attention to what's going on at their properties?" And with this logic, lets do it right and include entire neighborhoods.

your melting down, man.

Yeah but didn't lots of people clap when they Govt said they wouldn't payout landlords who let people smoke in their homes? So you are "ok" with the restrictions you approve of on landlords but not the ones you don't? A contract between a renter and a landlord is a civil matter, government needs to but out.

See people love freedom grabs till it effects them.

yeah - i'm not talking about govt. regulation... and i wasn't talking about banning dogs of any specific breed.

Just the ability to use civil courts to keep people responsible for their shit.

All landlords should require their tenants to carry renters insurance with $100K personal liability, if they have a dog or other known risk factor they should require personal liability coverage of at least $300K to $500K. Although provision in Maryland specifically indicates landlords are potentially liable, they were before this statue came about.

It looks like owners ARE required to pay compensation for damages. And it should be left at that. Saying the landlord is responsible when the owner doesn't pay up in this case is just BSL (breed specific legislation), another way to attack the breed. Pit bulls aren't more likely to bite a human, perhaps in the eye of the media they are, but in reality they're less likely than other breeds. Basically, it doesn't matter whether you find holding the landlord accountable reasonable or not - it's based on fictional bias. No one should have to pay for ludicrous insurance because the dog happens to be of a certain breed. If the dog bites someone (and that someone wasn't at fault), pay the costs or get sued, then determine if that specific dog is dangerous or not.

Approximately 8 out of 10 (reported) dog bites are from intact males. If they ever based their dangerous dog claims on fact, owners who haven't had their dogs neutered would be rightfully targeted. Cut down on dog bites by up to 80% just like that.

If you can't control your dog, you shouldn't have one. If you can't control your dog, you should be held fully responsible for anything that happens as a result of that lack of control. Too many people get dogs for the wrong reasons.

Amen.

And if we're going to start banning dogs (and making sweeping generalizations about types of dogs), you can start by banning those damn "teacup" breeds that do nothing but bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark....

Note to "Foofums" owner: Your dog's bark isn't "cute"...it's annoying as hell. Your dog barks at everything...even the slightest zephyr. Thanks for encouraging this behavior as a puppy that you will not be able to break as an adult. You're awesome. Please move. Signed: the people who live in the apartment/condo upstairs/downstairs/next door.