Just stupid

[Darius11 12]

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=82620

Quote

LEESBURG, Va.: A Virginia woman has resorted to DNA testing to prove her neighbors' dog was responsible for killing her cat and getting the dog declared dangerous.

Marylin Christian of rural Loudon County, outside Washington, D.C., found her 13-year-old cat Cody dead under the tree in front of their home in August.

Determined to find out who or what was responsible, she canvassed homes, and spotted a 4-year-old dog named Lucky running through the area. The dog belongs to a couple that recently moved to the area, and she confronted them with fur she found near the cat that matched their dog's.

When she requested county officials to deem the dog dangerous but was refused, she asked permission from the dog's owners, and got a saliva sample from the dog, which she sent to a California lab for DNA testing.

It came back as a match, but Christian hit another brick wall, The Washington Post reported.

Thomas Koenig, Loudoun's animal care director, told her the county would not attempt to declare Lucky dangerous, and as the DNA was not collected by officials, it might not be admitted into court.

"There's nothing we can prove," he said.

This is the kind of shit that piss's me off so much.

If the woman loved her cat so much she should know that some dogs try to kill cats so when you let him/her out she/he could get killed by dogs, cars, racoons, foxs etc. Are we going to start suing people over the laws of nature?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Scoop 0]

thats more than lucky

[Gravitymaster 0]

Depends. It is unclear from reading the story whether the dog was running loose in the neighborhood or whether it was confined to the owners yard. If the cat was in the yard with the dog, and was killed, then no problem. If the dog was running the neighborhood, unrestrained, then there's a problem because Virginia law requires a dog to be restrained, but not a cat.

The fact that she sent the DNA in for analysis isn't really the issue. My guess is the dogs owners denied responsibility. Had she witnessed the dog killing her cat and the dog wasn't restrained, then the owner certainly is liable.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

My guess is the dogs owners denied responsibility.

My guess is they were accused and wouldn't take responsibility without proof. So they voluntarily allowed a saliva sample to close the issue.

I bet it backfired when she actually got the test done and requested the dog be destroyed rather than they replace her pet with another cat. Now they are in a pissing contest and wasting taxpayer money.

Cat owners what can you do?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

My guess is the dogs owners denied responsibility.

My guess is they were accused and wouldn't take responsibility without proof. So they voluntarily allowed a saliva sample to close the issue.

I bet it backfired when she actually got the test done and requested the dog be destroyed rather than they replace her pet with another cat. Now they are in a pissing contest and wasting taxpayer money.

Cat owners what can you do?

I'm not sure she's asking for the dog to be destroyed. If the dog owners allowed their pet to run loose in the neighborhood, they are liable for more than just replacing the cat. Most courts would probably give something for emotional distress and perhaps award some type of punitive damages.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

If the dog owners allowed their pet to run loose in the neighborhood, they are liable for more than just replacing the cat. Most courts would probably give something for emotional distress and perhaps award some type of punitive damages.

Not correct. Merely allowing your dog to run loose (unless it's a pit bull or otherwise previously proven to be particularly vicious) is nothing more than simple negligence at best. Actually, the most you could get under these particular circumstances would be the replacement value of Widdle Snookums. I don't know of any state that would award emotional distress damages from the death of a cat at the hands (paws?) of a dog, especially if the attack was not witnessed by its owner. And no way would punitive damages be awarded, unless you could prove that the dog's owner deliberately and maliciously sic'ed their dog on the cat - which does not seem to be the case here.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.nabr.org/AnimalLaw/Damages/

Quote

SEATTLE May 9, 2005 — A woman who sued a neighbor after his dog mauled her cat to death has been awarded more than $45,000.

Retired teacher Paula Roemer's 12-year-old cat, Yofi, was attacked in her back yard in February 2004 by a chow belonging to her neighbor, Wallace Gray. The dog had repeatedly escaped in the past, according to the lawsuit.

Roemer, 71, said the death of the black and white cat left her with sleep disturbances, panic attacks and depression, causing her to begin smoking heavily. The amount awarded included $30,000 for the pet's special value and $15,000 for emotional distress.


Her lawyer, Adam P. Karp, announced the verdict by Judge Barbara L. Linde on Sunday and said the value accorded to the cat tied a record. In the previous case, a jury in California last year ordered a veterinarian to pay a dog owner $30,000 for the dog's "unique" value, plus $9,000 for veterinary bills.

Gray, who served three weeks in jail and three months under house arrest for an animal control violation, said an acquaintance was taking care of his dog at the time of the attack.

"This is absolutely crazy," Gray said. "I'm sorry she lost her cat, but I had no control over it."

Roemer said she doubted she would see any of the money but plans to donate anything she does collect to an animal protection group.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=740793

[Darius11 12]

Quote

http://www.nabr.org/AnimalLaw/Damages/

Quote

SEATTLE May 9, 2005 — A woman who sued a neighbor after his dog mauled her cat to death has been awarded more than $45,000.

Retired teacher Paula Roemer's 12-year-old cat, Yofi, was attacked in her back yard in February 2004 by a chow belonging to her neighbor, Wallace Gray. The dog had repeatedly escaped in the past, according to the lawsuit.

Roemer, 71, said the death of the black and white cat left her with sleep disturbances, panic attacks and depression, causing her to begin smoking heavily. The amount awarded included $30,000 for the pet's special value and $15,000 for emotional distress.


Her lawyer, Adam P. Karp, announced the verdict by Judge Barbara L. Linde on Sunday and said the value accorded to the cat tied a record. In the previous case, a jury in California last year ordered a veterinarian to pay a dog owner $30,000 for the dog's "unique" value, plus $9,000 for veterinary bills.

Gray, who served three weeks in jail and three months under house arrest for an animal control violation, said an acquaintance was taking care of his dog at the time of the attack.

"This is absolutely crazy," Gray said. "I'm sorry she lost her cat, but I had no control over it."

Roemer said she doubted she would see any of the money but plans to donate anything she does collect to an animal protection group.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=740793

Another reason why I am beginning to have less patience with humans. People need to get a life yes I love animals too but unless someone purposely hurt or killed you pet get over it cry bitch do what ever will make you get over it. But fucking lawsuits.............................I wish the media would report this story with a tone like the anchor would say.

" In an unusual story a stupid bytch actually paid for DNA test to prove a dog killed her cat funny my two year old knows dogs like to attack cats from watching cartoons"

Maybe that would help.


Am i over reacting or is every one getting sick of this shit?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Andy9o8 2]

Interesting links. It looks like almost all of the legislation in the first link is either proposed or pending legislation which hasn't become law. Tennessee caps non-economic damages at $4,000, and does not provide for punitive damges. Only intentional emotional distress is actionable, which is essentially what I said - just letting your dog run loose would at best be negligent infliction of emotional distress, which is not covered by the Tennessee law. The Illinois law refers only to cases of willful abuse or neglect, also not the case here. The links to the Connecticut statute do not work, so I can't read it.

As for the Washington case, it appears that a lot of the liability stems from the fact that the dog had escaped multiple times before, so its propensities were known by the owner. The jury must have decided that the owner recklessly failed to control the dog; and recklessness is a greater degree of wrongful conduct than simple negligence. Interesting that the Washington court allowed emotional distress damages in that case; I'm guessing that they were awarded becasue the owner witnessed some or part of the actual attack in her yard.

I do note that Virginia, where the case in the original post occurred, doesn't appear to have any new legislation allowing more than mere-negligence recovery.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I disagree that the liability stems from the fact the dog had escaped before. There is no indication in the article that the dog had been aggressive in the past. Therefore the owner had no way of knowing the dog's "propensities." There is also no indication the owner witnessed the attack.

[Andy9o8 2]

By "propensities" I meant propensity to escape and run wild; so the law charges owner with this knowledge and the resulting duty to use extra measures to keep the dog restrained. When the owner failed to do so, despite this knowledge and enhanced duty, it rose to the level of recklessness, which is a greater wrong than mere negligence, and thus he incurred greater liability for the consequences of his recklessness. I did say that I was "guessing" the owner witnessed some or part of the attack; it's an educated guess (and not an arbitrary one), because most states require contemporaneous witnessing of a distressing event to impose liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress. I haven't done a survey of Washington state law on this issue. I will do so if you like (for a fee; please send me your credit card number and the title to your car).

[Gravitymaster 0]

No thanks. I don't care that much.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=82620

Quote

LEESBURG, Va.: A Virginia woman has resorted to DNA testing to prove her neighbors' dog was responsible for killing her cat and getting the dog declared dangerous.

When she requested county officials to deem the dog dangerous but was refused, she asked permission from the dog's owners, and got a saliva sample from the dog, which she sent to a California lab for DNA testing.

It came back as a match, but Christian hit another brick wall, The Washington Post reported.

Quote

Um, the brick wall would be, SO WHAT if the dog's saliva matches the fur you found near your cat. The fact that the fur was found near the cat is not itself proof that the dog killed the cat. Period.

Quote

If the woman loved her cat so much she should know that some dogs try to kill cats so when you let him/her out she/he could get killed by dogs, cars, racoons, foxs etc. Are we going to start suing people over the laws of nature?

Exactly. What would she have done if it became clear that some random stray dog was the one that killed her cat? She'd have no recourse -- random stray dogs are a fact of nature, and they cannot be 100% eliminated.

So if she really wanted her cat to be safe, she'd have made it an indoor cat.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[mailin 0]

Actually, in the story I read she did not want the animal put down. The people that owned the dog had recently moved to the neighborhood (about 4 months after the owners of the cat), and had adopted the dog from a local rescue. The woman that owns the cat wants them to return the dog to the rescue so he can be adopted by someone who has a better living situation for the dog.

This woman is perfectly in her right to be 'afraid' of this dog. She has 3 remaining cats that, although I don't agree with this, she allows outside - it was one of the reasons she moved to that farm, to allow her animals to run free.

She also has a son under 1 year. The dog has been restrained to the owners back yard but has escaped on numerous occassions - to which the owners have been fined. This woman is worried about the dog killing her other cats or hurting her infant son; a very valid concern if you read how her cat was killed - the autopsy revealed it was ripped off of a tree (shredded claws), ribs broken and lung punctured; sounds pretty violent to me. She attempted to speak to the owners about their dog in an attempt to peacefully (meaning no lawsuit) come to an agreement but the owners of the dog said simply "this is what dogs do, kill cats".

I wouldn't accept that answer, and I'm glad she didn't either. Although I don't agree with lawsuits in every instance, I believe in this case it is just as the owners of the dog are not taking the responsability they should. The DNA aspect of it is pretty interesting too - it's not like she asked the state to pay for it, her and her husband paid more than $500 to have it analyzed.


Jen

Arianna Frances