rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
i agree. but many people think the law is the law and that the police know what they're on about even when they dont
another dog thread
- Thread starter wiskey
- Start date
i agree. but many people think the law is the law and that the police know what they're on about even when they dont
wiskey
Albatross Admirer
I suggested that she might want to get rid of the dog, not necessarily kill it but not keep it in her house and she accused me of suggesting that she put her 3yo in danger.
Anyway, the police can't do anything because its private property. thats a rubbish law!
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
but thats not the law.
The police can't prosecute as the attack took place on private property and the law only covers dogs in public places. (It's an error in the law, I agree)
The cat owner can take civil action though, and still needed to report it to the police as it IS an attack and for all they knew there had been others, or may be others in the future.
You (and the police) could loosely try and attach the fact that the dog would have had to been in a public place in order to have reached cat owners house/garden (if that's the case) but that only leaves the owner "guilty" for not having dog under control in public place. Hardly something the police are going to work very hard to achieve a result on.
The cat owner can take civil action though, and still needed to report it to the police as it IS an attack and for all they knew there had been others, or may be others in the future.
You (and the police) could loosely try and attach the fact that the dog would have had to been in a public place in order to have reached cat owners house/garden (if that's the case) but that only leaves the owner "guilty" for not having dog under control in public place. Hardly something the police are going to work very hard to achieve a result on.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
It all sounds like a tragic accident to me.
For what its worth, I live in 'farming country', and also keep terriers. Having seen both of them with rats (and once, a mink), I am under no illusion as to what would happen to any cats they might come across, thus I don't let them near anything small and fluffy that they aren't allowed to kill (although I hear you can break them to ferrets, wouldn't risk it). It certainly doesn't follow that they are therefore any risk to humans, In fact I cant recall my Patterdale even baring a fang to a person, even when being molested by small relatives.
I am certain that some farmers would shoot a dog that killed one of their cats, and if they did, you'd have to accept it, although I doubt as many would bother as would shoot a dog that troubled livestock. However, seeing as the dog owner in question didn't let the dog out, they can hardly be blamed, can they? I'd be fucking livid if someone let my dogs out without my say so.
I feel slightly unclean saying this, but it seems as though the policeman had the most sensible attitude here.
For what its worth, I live in 'farming country', and also keep terriers. Having seen both of them with rats (and once, a mink), I am under no illusion as to what would happen to any cats they might come across, thus I don't let them near anything small and fluffy that they aren't allowed to kill (although I hear you can break them to ferrets, wouldn't risk it). It certainly doesn't follow that they are therefore any risk to humans, In fact I cant recall my Patterdale even baring a fang to a person, even when being molested by small relatives.
I am certain that some farmers would shoot a dog that killed one of their cats, and if they did, you'd have to accept it, although I doubt as many would bother as would shoot a dog that troubled livestock. However, seeing as the dog owner in question didn't let the dog out, they can hardly be blamed, can they? I'd be fucking livid if someone let my dogs out without my say so.
I feel slightly unclean saying this, but it seems as though the policeman had the most sensible attitude here.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
And why would her child be in danger? Seems an odd leap of logic, just because a terrier did a terrier thing and killed a small animal.
(I'd never leave any child alone with any dog FWIW)
Orang Utan
Maybe I like the misery
yeah, a tragic accident - it does no good arguing with neighbours about whose fault it is - best to accept what has happened and move on. The dog owner should offer to pay for some of the vet's bills (though if the cat died, are there any?), but if they don't it ain't worth causing more bad feeling with a dispute on the courts.
Bloody hell!
if the woman doesn't understand that a dog, ANY dog can be a danger to small kids she souldn't be allowed to own one!
Oh come on. This is a tragic accident, but if a cat kills someone's pet budgie I don't suddenly logically assume that it's going to scratch a baby's eyes out.
This is a natural, if unfortunate turn of events. The dog should have been better secured, but I wouldn't read any more into events than that. Sympathy to all concerned.
So would I but it would still be me who was liable to the cat owner. Whether I then chose to take action against the person who let the dog free to recover the costs is up to me, but first responsibility is mine. It would be me who gave "someone" access to my house/dog in order for them to have released them. Accidents happen yes, but with no negligence etc, a car crash becomes one person's fault or a combo of the two and whoever's fault it is pays. That's where civil law comes in instead of criminal law.
If dog owner doesn't want to accept liability, then maybe a judge will make her a little clearer about where blame and responsibility lays.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Hopefully any judge with any sense would throw the claim out as an utter waste of time.
Dog kills cat in 'nature taking its course' shocker?
Whatever next? Cockerel put down because it crows in the morning?
Epona
Radar 2006-2020, Sonic 2006-2022, Jakey 2007-2024
Dog owners have a legal/civil responsibility to keep their dogs under control and prevent escape/straying - insurance for dogs usually includes 3rd party cover for that reasons. Most domestic animals are treated the same except for cats who have what is usually referred to as a 'free spirit' loophole whereby the cat owner is not held responsible for straying/damage to property - this is fairly unique amongst domestic animals. If a dog enters another person's property and does damage to human, pet, or property, the dog owner is held responsible in law.
wiskey
Albatross Admirer
is dog insurance compulsory like cars?
I wouldn't bother Epona, It's been said, several times. Apparently you leave your door open, it's perfectly ok for my dog to come in and attack you, your child (see link in my first post) and any other living thing. Not my fault.
Pingu
Credo
actually thats not quite acurate
under the DDA 1991 a prosecution can take place if the location the incident was not public (i.e. private property) AND the dog was in a place where it was not permitted to be (sect 3(3))
this is well within the polices juristicion (as its a criminal law) but tbh not many will know this law that well. for this act though the incident has to be relating to a person.
sect 2 of the dogs act 1871 could also apply
Pingu
Credo
dont want to piss on your bonfire but this is a law I know inside out
sect 3(3) of teh DDA 1991 states
the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—
(a) it injures any person; or
(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,
he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection
dogsa ct 1871 can also be used in non public places (but this is a civil law)
eta
link to the DDA http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1
My dog would rip a cat (or any other small animal) to pieces given half the change but it wouldn't touch any of the children.
Having said that, he's never left alone with children he doesn't know well and certainly not with young babies or toddlers.
Thora
Differently Ethical
She should be paying the vet bills, but I don't see why the dog should be got rid of?
When my sister was little a neighbour's dog escaped from it's back garden and attacked my sister's guinea pigs (not once, but twice in fact!). The neighbour did at least offer to buy her some new guinea pigs though.
wiskey
Albatross Admirer
She should be paying the vet bills, but I don't see why the dog should be got rid of?
I bow to people who more about this than me but I thought that you couldn't trust a dog once it had killed something?
Epona
Radar 2006-2020, Sonic 2006-2022, Jakey 2007-2024
No it isn't compulsory, but it IS highly advisable (and it is the dog owner's responsibility to either insure or bear costs themselves) - because of incidents like this. It doesn't matter that the door was open, the dog was still straying and not under the control of its owner when it entered the property.
Generally in the UK damages are unlikely to be awarded for emotional distress, but demonstrable costs such as vet bills, cost of disposal (cremation etc), loss of wages if work had to be missed to attend a vet, and replacement of the animal with similar if it resulted in death are likely to be awarded, plus court costs.
I am not sure about how the Dangerous Dogs Act would be applied (or even if it would be applied) in a case like this, that's not anything I know about.
But it doesn't matter how many doors, windows, or gates were open, or what damage was done, legal responsibility for any damage is 100% on the dog owner.
Then explain the incident in Kent and the Union action for post workers. The situation here is that no-one was in charge of the dog, it had escaped.
E2A Although I'm not quite sure they don't mean "has custody" rather than "in charge"
Sorry Pingu, I have a lot of respect for your posts but in this instance far more severe attacks have taken place and the law appears to not apply unless the dog is in a public place ... or "permitted" to be ..... This is not the same as "happens to be"
Thora
Differently Ethical
You can't trust it round cats, but just cos a dog kills a cat (or rabbit/squirrel/rat) doesn't make it dangerous. If a dog bit a child I wouldn't trust it again.
Pingu
Credo
why not?
bit of a wide brush there
bit like saying that just coc a person has been a twat to one person they will always be a twat to everyone.
in certain circumstances I would say you could be right but thats a huge generalisation
Pingu
Credo
i am just stating what the law is.. not how some people choose to apply it.
that IS what the law states wether you feel it is applied correcvtly is anotehr matter.
wiskey
Albatross Admirer
oh right, I've never had a dog. I just thought that you generally didn't trust a dog that had killed something, I just picked up that the norm is to get rid of it. Maybe thats just the cases that make the news.
Do dogs eat cats often then?
