Dog Owner Gets Jail Time For Attack

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080922/world/fatal_dog_mauling

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge has sentenced a dog owner to 15 years to life in prison, seven years after her canines fatally mauled her neighbour in an upscale San Francisco neighbourhood.
A judge had reduced a jury's conviction of second-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter and Marjorie Knoller was sentenced in 2002 to four years in prison. But the California Supreme Court last year ordered the second-degree murder conviction reinstated.
She was sentenced on that conviction today.
Knoller's lawyers plan to appeal.
The conviction stemmed from the 2001 death of Dianne Whipple.
She was attacked by Knoller's two Presa Canarios in a hallway of their apartment building.
Each dog weighed more than 45 kilograms and inflicted at least 77 wounds.

Finally a case where the owner gets to face the consequences.

Ollie, does this get me a cookie? Or do I have to line up?

A+...I am all freakin' weepy with all this cooperation.

I tried to ship you a cookie but the border inspector rejected it becuse it was not at least 51% Canadian content.

Maybe next time I will smuggle it in a Molson's can

I hope this becomes a more common practice (the jail sentence).

I use to work for a manufacture that made underground dog fences, shock collars, etc. I was the Corporate Trainer and part of that training was to verse the contact center employees on the responisbilies of a an animal onwer.
You are responisble for your animals actions every moment, in every situation. "If your neighbor kid opens your gate and your dog gets out and bites someone, you are responsible, NOT the kids parents." (the thinking behond that is, your property should be secure at all times) I use to explain it this way, if your neighbor kid got into your gate and drown in your pool, you would be responsible.
I just wish more ppl understood that that have animals.

Some advice that our Dog Trainer gave us was never get one of those "Beware of Dog" signs. She said that if your dog bit someone (say if they put their hand over the fence to pet the dog), a lawyer could use that sign against the dog owner and say "Look, they even admit by posting that sign that their dog is vicious."

I don't necessarily agree with that rationale, but some lawyers can be slimy that way.

Needless to say, we never did get one of those signs.

Our insurance agent told us the same thing. It was a long time ago and I have no idea if I could find it again but there is case law on this and the sign was viewed as an acknowledgment that you were aware your dog "could" pose a danger to others.

Sounds reasonable to me. I'd use it against someone with one of those signs as well.

This is law in Ontario regarding dogs.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Ontario.htm

[/quote]The Dog Owners Liability Act (Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16) provides:

Liability of owner
2. (1) The owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (1).
Where more than one owner
(2) Where there is more than one owner of a dog, they are jointly and severally liable under this section. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (2).
Extent of liability
(3) The liability of the owner does not depend upon knowledge of the propensity of the dog or fault or negligence on the part of the owner, but the court shall reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree, if any, to which the fault or negligence of the plaintiff caused or contributed to the damages. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (3).
Contribution by person at fault
(4) An owner who is liable to pay damages under this section is entitled to recover contribution and indemnity from any other person in proportion to the degree to which the other person’s fault or negligence caused or contributed to the damages. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (4).
Application of Occupiers’ Liability Act
3. (1) Where damage is caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog on the premises of the owner, the liability of the owner is determined under this Act and not under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 3 (1).
Protection of persons or property
(2) Where a person is on premises with the intention of committing, or in the commission of, a criminal act on the premises and incurs damage caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog, the owner is not liable under section 2 unless the keeping of the dog on the premises was unreasonable for the purpose of the protection of persons or property. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 3 (2). [/quote]