<p>negatory</p>
<p>10</p>
<p>The mother is at fault. If she didn’t want her child to get bitten she should not allow it near animals.</p>
<p>^ The mother certainly wasn’t wise, but the owner brought the canine into the public and as owner, is responsible for any misdeeds. Like if the child had, on it’s own, went to pet the dog, it’s not the child’s fault.</p>
<p>The mother can sue. Anyone can sue. She probably wouldn’t win though.</p>
<p>The dumb **** of a mother</p>
<p>
He shouldn’t be responsible for this misdeed. He took the trouble of tying the dog so it would be restrained. That way, if anybody approaches the dog, they are assuming a certain risk and it is no longer his fault if they get bitten.</p>
<p>Gonna go out on a limb and guess its George Bush at fault here.</p>
<p>jamie I disagree with that because like that post said, the owner assumed the risk of damage by bringing an animal into the open public where it can potentially be a danger. the onus of responsibility and the position of liability is thus on the owner. tying it to the pole was not a marker of any kind; it was just negligence.</p>
<p>“He shouldn’t be responsible for this misdeed. He took the trouble of tying the dog so it would be restrained.”<br>
–That makes no difference as he doesn’t get brownie points for going further to ensure public safety. An animal is an animal and when it is in public you have sole responsibility.</p>
<p>
Why should one be solely responsible for actions one cannot control? The man did not order the dog to attack; the dog did it on it’s own. In as far as he could control the dog, he did so by tying him to the pole so that none that did not want to get near him need do so. What is the alternative, that nobody should take their animals out for fear of being responsible for anything they do even when they make their best effort to prevent it?</p>
<p>Yes, he should get brownie points for going further to ensure public safety. Even if he was to be penalized I would think he should be penalized less than someone who just let their dog run wild and that the dog happened to bite someone in that case.</p>
<p>The owner did not assume the risk of damage by bringing the dog into the open. I am sure that thought didn’t even cross his mind; he just thought he was taking his pet along for a stroll and, on finding he could not bring him to the store, made reasonable accommodations to ensure his control and the safety of the public. This is unlike petting the dog, where the inherent danger in touching a creature of unknown temperament should be inherent, if not to the boy, then at least to the mother.</p>
<p>It is like saying that a man should be held responsible if he left his car unlocked with the keys attached while he went to the store and some kid got in (with his mother’s approval, no less) and drove the car into an accident.</p>
<p>Curiosity killed the cat… or bit the small boy.</p>
<p>Curiosity killed the cat… or bit the small boy.</p>
<p>Curiosity killed the cat… or bit the small boy.</p>
<p>I agree with you that socially he may not be responsible, that is in fact my original position to a degree, considering that he did certain things to prevent some issues, but legally it was his responsibility, as the rest of the people agree with that as well. Legally he is at fault.</p>
<p>Oh well, legally, yeah he would probably be found responsible, at least in the U.S. I think the laws that decree so are stupid and should be changed, though.</p>