Law regarding dogs defending you or your home.

[AmberGS1Exit]

Make it known and live your life. There shouldn't be anyone trying to steal anyhting out of your house. Fight it to the core esp. if you know some stranger is trying to sue you over his failed attempt.

[GSD84]

Originally Posted by Wild Wolf

Hello everyone,

I have had a lingering question for months now in regards to laws in my area concerning dogs and property. I have heard that a dog biting someone who has invaded your home makes YOU liable, and you can be sued or your dog can be seized for biting/defending your home. I thought this was ludicrous, so I decided to ask those who know best!

I took my 8 month old pup Hunter for a walk around the block a few moments ago and ran into the Canine Unit which was parked in the mall parking lot. They stopped me to ask if they could pet Hunter, which I VERY HAPPILY said yes! I told them I absolutely loved the Canine Unit, wanted to be a K9 Officer when I was young, and told them that Hunter is from working-lines and is being trained in Schutzhund. After a small chat, I asked them about laws regarding dogs and property.

I gave the Officer the following scenario:

Someone breaks in to my home or enters entirely uninvited, my dog bites that person because he was defending my property/me, am I liable and can anything happen to my dog?

The Officer says I am NOT liable and as long as my dog has his rabies vaccine, nothing would be done to me or my dog. Anyone who enters my property uninvited does so "at their own risk" and I have the right to allow my dog to defend me and my home. I cannot be sued for my dog biting someone while on my property (again, uninvited), and my dog will not be seized. He said to take the dog out of the situation, it is just like me punching somebody square in the face and holding them until police arrives. It is considered personal protection.

I thought I would share that information, that is how it works here in Ontario, Canada!

Yup that is exactly how is works in Canada...specifically Ontario...where abouts are you? As for the states they have a completely different law in regards to this....hopefully one of our american counterparts can chime in

[GSD84]

Originally Posted by Dainerra

Also, don't take the word of the K9 unit as gospel. Cops aren't lawyers. They are not the ones who make the decisions on whether or not a case will go to trial (if it's criminal). Not to mention, a lawsuit would be civil, which is an entirely different segment of the legal code. If you want a legal opinion on "could I be charged criminally", contact you local District Attorney's office. If you want an opinion for "is there cause for a civil case" chat with an attorney who handles this kind of case. They will know if there is precedent in your area for this type of situation.

A good rule of thumb is "anyone can sue for anything" There is a guy in prison for vehicular manslaughter after pleading guilty. He is now suing the estate of one of the victims, saying that the VICTIM is actually the one who caused the action. He is seeking pain and suffering as compensation for his time in jail, among other damages.

cops in ontario study the law quite frequently. what the canine unit said to her is exactly correct....the laws in canada are a lot more lenient then in the states (can be a pro and con), but as long as you can prove in the court of law that the dog was protecting you and your property, the case will be tossed....hubby is a cop in the big city...had a few cases like this...

[CMeredith]

The story about the 2 dogs in Washington state is a perfect example of there always being another side to the story. It turns out the woman has a history of letting her 7 GSDs run free and has been cited several times in the last few months for it. There have also been multiple incidents involving aggression.

Furthermore, it turns out she and the woman who was bitten regularly had coffee together together each morning. She wasn't an "intruder" - she was a friend whom the dogs knew well. And she didn't break in. She did what she always did - she came over with 2 cups of coffee. Only this time, the owner wasn't home (but the door was unlocked). The woman didn't realize her friend wasn't home until after the dogs attacked her.

Now, do I think the dogs should be put down? Not really. But the woman should be put on notice that ANY further acts of aggression when her dogs are running loose will not be tolerated. Do I think the woman is at serious risk in a civil suit? Absolutely. When your friend comes over every day with coffee and you allow her to do that and don't lock the door when you're not home - starts to sound questionable to me. But once again - totality of circumstances. I'd need to know all the facts. And she's already demonstrated herself as an irresponsible dog owner.

[KentuckyGSDLover]

Originally Posted by Warrior09

So Im from kentucky too, and what you are saying is that an trespasser is actually the ciminal and not treated like the victim if my 2 dogs are protecting me and my home?!?!?

Not be sarcastic to you lol just surprised that the law is actually on our side as far as that.

Instead of being taught english 102 this semester my whole class talks about law, news and personal experiences with everything LOL actually a great class not boring.

From everything I've seen on previous court cases and law sites, yes, Kentucky rules in favor of the right to one's property and person from trespassers. In other words, we're allowed to have our dogs on our own land without getting sued because someone decided to encroach upon it. Wise to post your land, though. I had a horrible problem with people on 4-wheelers trespassing on mine a couple of years ago. Geeze, I think some people believe any place they want to play is like some kind of national park.

[Gwenhwyfair]

Agreed.

I thought about becoming a lawyer and took some business law and contract law classes as well. Though I did not follow through on that path those classes have served me well (more so than abstract accounting LOL! ) in my day to day life since college.

I also think the urban legend phenomena, like the McDonald's hot coffee case, distort reality.

We had a case locally where a property protection dog professionally trained by my trainer did what it was supposed to do, stop a theif.

A local business was plauged by thefts of small equipment. After trying alarms, fences and bars to no avail he goes to my trainer and buys a very well trained dog...

Enter bad guy, who climbs over the very tall chain link fence surrounding the business to drop into the back storage area where he was 'greeted' by the dog. The alarm went off and the dog did it's job by biting and holding the burgular until the police arrived in response to the alarm.

The burgular later sued the business owner and LOST.

These cases happen too, but don't seem to get the same play time on blogs and forums.

Originally Posted by Liesje

There are still too many anecdotes being brought up that don't compare. There are specific penal codes that address crimes depending on locale/jurisdiction, but owning a dog, even one that might bite, is usually not a crime. A dog biting someone in your home deals with tort law. Tort law is different than criminal law, you're dealing with civil cases where someone is usually suing for money/compensation (or maybe punitive damages). I would never expect a cop to be well versed in tort law nor would I take one's word for it. Marshies is correct, more often than not the home owner owes a duty of care. There are no written laws on who is liable when. In the USA we use common law, which means it's up to judges' decisions in court, not just statutes. I studied tort law and contract law for one semester and it was crazy the types of things people brought to court. Our professor (a practicing attorney) always said the answer is "it depends".

[asja]

Everyone should look up the dangerous dog laws in their state or province for clarification.

Here is the law in Virginia:
LIS > Code of Virginia > 3.2-6540

C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was: (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.

[BlackJack]

Semi related at the the topic at hand.

Pitbull that defended his guardian from ex-husband's assault put to death DogHeirs | Where Dogs Are Family Keywords: Pitbull, domestic violence

[asja]

Originally Posted by BlackJack

Semi related at the the topic at hand.

Pitbull that defended his guardian from ex-husband's assault put to death DogHeirs | Where Dogs Are Family Keywords: Pitbull, domestic violence

How sad and tragic.