(Untitled)

[thexphial]

A dog gets out of its yard and, while it's free, it attacks and maims a human being. Does the dog's owner bear more responsibility if s/he trained the dog to be aggressive versus simply not properly training and socializing the dog?

Comments

[audacian]

Yes. One is negligence and one is having knowledge that your dog is a danger to others.

[cindyanne1]

My opinion is yes, but I live in Ohio, and the owner is considered 100% liable anyway, no matter if the dog is trained to fight or not.

[sblmnldrknss]

I'm not sure. I mean, to some degree, it sort of doesn't matter how it's happened once it's happened, right? I don't care if a person's dog "whoops" got out and killed someone or if they intentionally let the dog out and it killed someone. If you own an animal and its capable of hurting someone, you're responsible for preventing that from that happening, period.

[madra_liath]

I'm inclined to agree with sblmnldrknss - it's much of a muchness in one way because somebody got hurt. As far as the law goes I would definitely punish an owner who trained the dog to be aggressive (if proof could be established of course) more severely than someone who hadn't socialised the animal properly.

[madra_liath]

BTW as the owner of a German Shepherd, this post is my special nightmare.

[logosh]

No. Her purposely training the dog or unpurposely training the dog to attack people doesn't make the hospital bill lessen and the wounds go away