Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Family Sues Over Fatal Dog Mauling ....

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Parents are to blame IMO.

    There was a case in NZ a while ago about a nursing pitbull with a litter. And a toddler who managed to crawl all the way to the end of the yard and go underneath a fence, and was then mauled by the bitch.

    All while the toddlers family wer ein the backyard having a large family gathering.

    The bitch and the pups were all PTS.

    What a waste of life....IMO that too as the parents fault.

    When are parents going to start accepting responsibility for their children?

    The pool thing gets me too. I cant put up a blo up pool over 40cms high without applying for pool fencing permits and erecting a proper pool fence, just in case some kid climbs my six foot back fences and ends up drowned in my pool.

    I mean, what are children doing wandering around and their parents not knowing where they are? My daughter is 11 and I am still alays very aware of where she is at all times

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Riverina, NSW
    Posts
    44

    Default

    I can understand a fence around a pool, but not a blow up pool

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ilovefluke View Post
    I can understand a fence around a pool, but not a blow up pool
    Just recently a young child drowned in a dogs water bowl....

    If parents are not going to be responsible they will continue to bring in legislation such as pool fencing.

    I believe from this incident new legislation was bought in to NSW to say all dogs used for hunting are now required to be housed the same as a dog declared dangerous ie: fully enclosed, child proof runs.

    Responsibility all round here. Although I feel the owner is the least at fault, followed by the council and then the parents. If you bring a child into this world than you are taking responsibility for the health and well being of that child. If you cannot be bothered monitoring your child properly then don't have kids. I would like to add I do realise accidents happen and sometimes you can take your eye off a child for 2 seconds and they are into mischief but for a child to wander to someone elses property and be missing for 2 hours does not fall into that category. From what I heard the child was also carrying a dead chicken to feed the dogs, apparently she had already been picked up once by a neighbour/passer by and returned to her home prior to this incident.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Moggill, Queensland
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Keira, personally I believe the owner is at fault also. The article did state that the dogs have roamed in the past and have previously bitten two people, and also been noted to chase people. If you don't take that as a warning, then there is something very wrong here.

    Of course he couldn't have known that this particular incident was going to happen, but obviously these dogs were not suitable to be around any sort of human population. Imagine if they had encountered a child in her own front yard?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Regional NSW
    Posts
    94

    Default

    If I had my dogs in a double fenced yard and chained up and this happened I would horrifed and astounded but I dont think I would feel to be at blame. If the dogs had been wondering the streets yes, if the dogs had been in the front yard and reached over the fence etc but they were secured to the full extent of what was required at the time and the child came to them.

    If you have a bull in a paddock and someone goes in the paddock and is trampled is it the farmers fault? My younger brother was head butted to unconsciousness by a ram (lambing season) whose paddock he had entered as a four year old before Dad could get to him. It is the same thing.

    All we can do is learn....

    I find it interesting that the ranger's diary for the period has 'been stolen'.....

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Moggill, Queensland
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Obviously the yard was no secure if the dogs needed to be chained up and the child could get in. The issue is not the child getting in to the dogs (although that's certainly very wrong too). The issue is that the owner KNEW the dogs were aggressive to people and were obviously not secure (in a fenced enclosure, etc).

    The parents are certainly the blame first and foremost. I just think the owner (or the council) should have done something about these dogs beforehand.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Lightbulb Contributory Negligence/duty of care

    When a case is deemed sufficient in evidence to go to court there are often legal criteria that must be met in these types of matters.
    There is one rule that is the 'but not for' rule and this applies for instance to the but not for the fence being flimsy or but not for the dogs not being secured effectively, would the injury or fatality in this case have occurred? Secondly, the but not for extends to the fact that had there been adequate fencing, etc the injury or fatality would not have happened. Secondly, if the but not for can be decided upon, it must have resulted in physical, emotional injury for example.
    However, one other part of the equation is that negligence is established but often depending on the circumstances is known as contributory negligence. In awarding any dollar amount, the decision is that but not for some negligence on the plaintiffs behalf, if therefore established-the dollar amount if proved to be entitled would be split.
    For example: An individual is involved in a mva and the other car is clearly in the wrong. The plaintiff sues for damages however he himself was not wearing a seatbelt. Therefore under the law he has partially contributed to his demise (as in injury extent), as but not for the fact he chose not' TO WEAR his seatbelt, he would be likely to receive less injuries, so is awarded less the percentage of the final figure that is decided on.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Moggill, Queensland
    Posts
    697

    Default

    For some reason... at 4am... that was very hard to read

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    DC

    So but not for the parents letting the child disappear for two whole hours, then nothing bad would have happened to the child.

    Given the parents had no clue where the child had gone - and she was not confined to a safe place by a secure fence etc - she could have gone to her demise in a large number of ways, not just by provoking the neighbour's dogs.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I remember what was reprted well, this is not to say it was all correct, so will just say this,where the mother was at the time the child was wandering is something to be looked into before they worry about the blame.
    If the mother was not in the home and the child had indeed been left, then, not the dog owners fault as it was also widely reported the kid knew the dogs and played with them, she would not have known that taking food near hungry pig dogs could lead to a fight and it is highly likely she was bitten more by accident than that those dogs were meaning to kill her, she was still alive when found but bled out, a kid attacked with intent to kill by a pack of large dogs would have been dead.

    Not a pretty thought but a fact, have seen enough of dogs of prey in action to be pretty sure the child would not have still been alive when found some time after the attack had this been the case.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •