Whose Fault Is This?

[Jabberwocky]

Well.. I suppose to narrows it down to the idea that the dog is not human or child aggressive, just either dog aggressive or territorial with other dogs.

 

Hope the children didn't see what happened though..

 

No but mine almost did! They heared the screams and followed me down the garden to see what was happening. I had to shepherd them back into the house quickly!

[quisquose]

Yes, our idea's are completely different. But what's the point in private property if it's not private? It's not like the child doesn't know the difference from right or wrong, and trespassing is trespassing. If they are not old enough to know the right from wrong I highly doubt they would be able to trespass and certainly shouldn't be without parental supervision if they are that young.

By your idea if a child climbs a pylon/power line and gets electrocuted it is then the council's fault because its their pylon.. But it wouldn't be, because things don't quite work that way, as the child has trespassed and didn't acknowledge the dangers of trespassing.

 

The point is that you have a potential liability with your private land, even though it is private, and even though people, children, puppies and wildlife might be there uninvited. It being private, on it's own, does not erode responsibility.

 

Your analogy with the pylon rather proves the point because the pylon owner does take responsibility to ensure that nobody can accidentally, or stupidly, enter their property without knowing the risks. Anybody climbing a pylon has de facto accepted the liability.

 

My garden has little of risk in it, so I have little security to keep visitors out. But if I had a dangerous dog, or a swimming pool, or dangerous machinery, then I would have a responsibility to keep people and animals out. Simple.

 

Lotti quite clearly explains how she manages her responsibility, and bravo for that. But in this case the Staffy owners were negligent for failing to secure their property, and if the puppy owners were of a mind to sue then they would win.

[Elizabeth13]

But in this case the Staffy owners were negligent for failing to secure their property, and if the puppy owners were of a mind to sue then they would win.

 

Their property is secure for their dog. Their dog cannot get out into the neighbouring garden. It is up to the puppies owners then to make sure their property is also secure, and that their puppy cannot get out.

 

What your saying is that if a dog is secure in a garden with 6ft fencing, but a cat comes over the fence it is the dogs owners fault for the neighbouring cat being able to get over? And then should the dog kill the cat on the dogs property? It's still the dogs owners fault despite the fact they've made it so their dog can't get out?

[Evei]

Their property is secure for their dog. Their dog cannot get out into the neighbouring garden. It is up to the puppies owners then to make sure their property is also secure, and that their puppy cannot get out.

 

What your saying is that if a dog is secure in a garden with 6ft fencing, but a cat comes over the fence it is the dogs owners fault for the neighbouring cat being able to get over? And then should the dog kill the cat on the dogs property? It's still the dogs owners fault despite the fact they've made it so their dog can't get out?

 

According to that logic, plyon owners must get sued when someone is stupid enough to win themselves a darwin award by climbing up one? The make reasonable efforts to make it secure but if someone wants to get up they will choose to do so.

 

You can make things as secure as you want but if people are silly enough or careless with care of their offspring/ animals it seems sad that the owner that tried and put measures in place will be the one to be sued

 

Then again I suppose it is this silly culture we are getting now that you are not to blame for your own actions and it always is someone elses fault

[Canis lupus]

But in this case the Staffy owners were negligent for failing to secure their property, and if the puppy owners were of a mind to sue then they would win.

 

Or it may be viewed that the property was secure enough to prevent the Staff from getting out in which case they had fulfilled their responsibilities and it is the neighbours who are at fault, for not securing their side of the fence.

[Elizabeth13]

Or it may be viewed that the property was secure enough to prevent the Staff from getting out in which case they had fulfilled their responsibilities and it is the neighbours who are at fault, for not securing their side of the fence.

 

That's exactly what I tried to say

[Elizabeth13]

According to that logic, plyon owners must get sued when someone is stupid enough to win themselves a darwin award by climbing up one? The make reasonable efforts to make it secure but if someone wants to get up they will choose to do so.

 

You can make things as secure as you want but if people are silly enough or careless with care of their offspring/ animals it seems sad that the owner that tried and put measures in place will be the one to be sued

 

Then again I suppose it is this silly culture we are getting now that you are not to blame for your own actions and it always is someone elses fault

 

Exactly. You can only do so much.

If the staffy was secure on their property and could not get out, then they have done their jobs as owners.

However, if a puppy or smaller animal (like a guinea pig) could get through the boundaries, then it is up to the neighbour who owns the smaller animal to ensure that on their side of the hedge/fence is secure for their pet also.

 

I know. People will sue anyone for anything just for some cash these days and to pass on the blame so they don't feel guilty.

[Lotti]

I have just popped back to add that I've been told off by a friend. Apparently Takara doesn't bark like a hell hound... she dances around grinning with a full on 'dalmatian smile'!

 

Whilst here I should clear up that I would do anything for my dogs - boring or otherwise and the point I was attempting to make by saying I'd be bored is that my dogs don't really do much when out in the garden, except enjoy being out there.

 

If they needed to be supervised constantly of course I would. I do spend a lot of time out there with them, playing with them etc. but I do leave them for a few minutes at a time too.

 

I have been criticised for my life revolving around the dogs too much... it amuses me that I'm not being criticised for having a disgusting attitude towards them - clearly, you will never please everyone!!

 

I just thought I'd clear it up as vwkittie obviously had an issue with it (though I didn't particularly mind that) but I didn't want anyone who's opinion I value to get the wrong idea too.

[Canis lupus]

That's exactly what I tried to say

 

I totally missed that one I do apologise ...

[Elizabeth13]

I totally missed that one I do apologise ...

 

Haha no problem, you see you were direct and to the point.

I tend to ramble with about 20 words more than needed and tend to more go around my point in a pathetic attempt to make that point