Of course I read the story. The way you keep talking about threatening people's "finances," it's clear that you care more about money than dogs. The point of suing wouldn't be to enrich oneself; it would be to discourage bad, dangerous behavior from pet owners. And, yes, the lady did own the dog, whether she was going to return it or not. And if she was returning it because it was aggressive, the fault for London's dog's injuries (and his wife's) is entirely on the woman for leaving the window down when she was driving with an aggressive animal. Also, it's ludicrous for you to suggest that the Rot attacked because he felt in danger from a tiny dog. He attacked because he is aggressive - the same reason the woman was returning him and the same reason her window shouldn't have been down. She's an idiot. You are too.
It was pretty much implied here.... The dog belonged to the lady whether or not she was bringing him back. She adopted him and was taking him back. The fact that the lady left her dog to jump from the vehicle is her responsibility. It's completely different if I'm walking down the sidewalk with my animal and we cross paths with another animal on a leash. If they want to growl and jump at my dog, it's whatever, as far as I'm concerned. But if the owner was walking their dog with no leash and it attacked mine, I'd have issues. Some of us have a hard enough time affording insurance for ourselves let alone our pets. And I'd hate for anyone to say, well if you can't afford it why do you have animals? Should I think that since I can't afford to pay for my own health insurance that I shouldn't live in my house and buy food?
So... yeah, my life MUST BE confusing, since I don't know when a dog can't be controlled. Explain this one, sir... how do you know the rottweiler "felt" threatened? Were you there and knew his FEELINGS?
IMO common decency says the woman should offer to help but if she doesn't IMO you're sol. If you go the legal route, you better be prepared for her lawyer to argue anything to pass the buck on to the shelter.
I haven't seen you in a thread recently where you haven't attacked someone personally. Chill the **** out already.
Quit trying to let people off of their responsibility. We have a well trained unagressive dog that is on a leash. We have an agressive dog that the current owner knows is aggressive and isn't on a leash. The owner of the agressive dog does nothing to keep it restrained and it attacks an innocent well trained properly supervised animal on a leash. And you somehow want to absolve the lady who owned the aggressive unleashed dog of any and all responsibility? Meanwhile you put that responsibility on the owner of the leashed and properly restrained animal?
Sure call me an idiot. I apologize for the fact that you're the person with the correct moral view here. But why call the lady an idiot? You don't even know her, or have had an contact with her, I mean it's already really ignorant that you're blasting me over the internet. But her too? C'mon man you haven't even ever had contact or a conversation with this woman. You were one of those kids in High School that...(I wont get into it, to save face for you.) Seriously dude, don't call me an idiot, I'll apologize for calling you a fool. But don't bring an innocent lady into this lol... How would suing her benefit any dog owners? It would give her piece of mind to never leave her window open again. Then what? Will we see a LMN movie on this guy and his battle to get his couple thousand in vet fees? I mean c'mon.... And by threatened, it could mean anything, even just an "I dont' like this other dog." The fact is there are aggressive dogs out there and this guy is acting like he is a special incident. She's an idiot. You are too. All I was saying in my post was that it's just douchebagery to sue someone over something like this, even though it wasn't his fault, I also believe it wasn't the lady's I think this was a "chance" type of thing that's all. And the fact that people are so "sue-happy" these days is disgusting. In fact I'm suing you for calling me an idiot, expect to get served shortly.
Whether the lady is an idiot or not, she's irresponsible. She knew she had an aggressive dog. She didn't properly leash it, or restrain it in any way, and gave it access to a ton of other dogs at a dog shelter. How the hell is that not foolish? If she knows the dog is aggressive, and that she's going to be at a place with dozens of other dogs what would a non-foolish, responsible owner do?
definitely make her pay for the bills, she was neglient by not having a leash on the dog or not having him restraint in the car AND leaving the window down...she already knew he was dangerous and common sense would be to keep him restraint until he's back at the shelter. As for the breeds of dogs and their environment...i too would like to believe it's the environment, not the breed, but i think in cases where an aggressive breed is in a loving and competent environment, there will still always be a chance he'll turn aggressive and it'll be more likely than if a less agressive breed was in it's place...i know it seems like a "duh" comment to make, but some think by caring and loving a dog you erase it's temperament. My friend's pit jumperd on her and chewed up her hand/wrist, luckily someone was nearby to get him off of her, but she's had him since he was a puppy and she's the tpyical dog lover, would never abuse the dog in any way...that day she just told him to get off her boyfriend who he had jumped on in a playful manner, but wouldnt let off, and he turned on her. I think all dogs snap at a certain point when you don't let them do what they want, but the agrressive breeds of a bigger size think they can take you, so people should still be careful..
Yeah but this situation is different. The man here knows the facts, she was trying to return the aggressive dog, because she knew she didn't have the capacity to train the dog, so why not give her kudos for that fact alone. All I'm saying is he should give her a break. She didn't sick the dog on him, she didn't let the dog out of the car, the dog got out the car on its' own. If he really wants to harm someone(yes I consider suing someone harming) then he should just kill the dog that attacked his. If he really wants some sort of equalizer to his dog getting attacked that's what he'd do.
Some things are valid for suing. Should someone have been able to sue McDonalds because they got burnt by hot coffee, probably not. Should someone have been able to sue TomTom (GPS) for directing them in front of a train, probably not. But if my dog is attacked by another dog that "belongs" to someone else and the bills are quite expensive then yes, I'd be suing.
yeah, let's give the lady a break... and let London's Burning's pocket and his dog suffer, too. Anyway... London's Burning, what was the explanation of the lady? Did she even offer to pay anything? I've lost track or missed if you said how she responded.
I have a 1yr old Dogue de Bordeaux (current weight 160lbs). Though sweet natured, it is ALWAYS my duty to ensure he is chill....especially around other dogs.
Dogs are a responsibility if you own one, expect your pocket to suffer, and don't try to bring it upon someone else's well uhh pocket...
As valid as your post sounds, it's a fact that people have a bias for animals, and it is apparent in this thread. I think that people should see beyond that bias, and not use it as an excuse to gain from someone else. Also I think it is very valid for someone to sue the GPS company or the wrong directions.
