Tracey v. Solesky, No. 53, September Term 2012, Opinion by Cathell, J.
STRICT LIABILITY ADOPTED IN RESPECT TO ATTACKS ON HUMANS BY PIT BULL DOGS AND CROSS-BRED PIT BULL DOGS.
Upon a plaintiff’s sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull cross, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull’s presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has a right to prohibit such dogs on leased premises) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull, that person is liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner’s or lessor’s premises. In that case a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence. When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.
~~~~
In practical terms, the law means that in any incident involving a Pit Bull, the dog's owner or a or a landlord who rents to the owner of a Pit Bull would automatically be guilty of owning or harboring a 'dangerous' dog, thereby exposing those people to legal liability. Labeling Pits as inherently dangerous makes their adoption much more difficult, leading to more euthanized dogs. If this strikes you as wrong-headed and unjust (Imagine a law that said, owing to the nature of the Mafia, all Italians are inherently criminal) sign the petition asking the Maryland Supreme Court to overturn the misguided, bigoted law.
'Inherently Dangerous' Tanner about to claim another victim |
~~~~
On a lighter note, if you enjoy watching canine athletes strut their, check out this video of Tre-T, a Russian parkour super Pit Bull who treats the city like one huge urban dog park. Like Tanner, Tre-T's an American Staffordshire Terrier, but just a tad more energetic.
Tre-T literally bouncing off the walls |
No comments:
Post a Comment