1 « 26 27  29 30 31 32
It has already been stated that if Cate had called Animal Control, the dog would most likely already have been seized and put down, especially given that there is a past history of attacks.

yes, that is my understanding.
I also know the way the courts and juries work in cases of civil liability around here. In a civil ... heavily in Cate's favor. The fact that Orson's middle-aged and blind would most likely weigh in her favor as well.

that's exactly what i would suspect. however, it seems that Bizby is having trouble with the concept of laws, on the one hand, and courts, on the other. they are not the same thing, as you know. just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean that a court civil or criminal will find against the law breaker. which is why i said that legally the neighbors are 100% responsible. i did not, however, say bupkis about potential court cases, as i wouldn't want to hazard a guess.

shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com /
that's exactly what i would suspect. however, it seems that Bizby is having trouble with the concept of laws, on ... 100% responsible. i did not, however, say bupkis about potential court cases, as i wouldn't want to hazard a guess.

Would you agree that if someone went to court, and a judgment was rendered, that they then become
legally responsible to comply with the judgment?
That if the judge decided that Cate was 20% responsible for what had happened, that the neighbors would then not be 100% legally responsible?
Probably not. You're only interested in a war of
words. You've already stated in the paragraph
above that you agree with what I stated. Now
you'll just find some reason to say that it wasn't what I said, or it wasn't what you said, or it
wasn't what I said you said or whatever.
Bizby
That if the judge decided that Cate was 20% responsible for what had happened, that the neighbors would then not be 100% legally responsible? Probably not.

i wouldn't and didn't hazard a guess. i'd appreciate it if you didn't try to shoe-horn what i've written to fit your scenario, as i have/had no intention of addressing the issue.
You've already stated in the paragraph above that you agree with what I stated.

no, i did not. you keep trying to apply what i've written to your assumptions about a potential lawsuit against Cate's neighbors, when i've not addressed that particular issue.
Now you'll just find some reason to say that it wasn't what I said, or it wasn't what you said, or it wasn't what I said you said or whatever.

of course, because it wasn't what i said.

shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com /
Oh, goD help us - not the "taste for blood" myth!!! If their young dog is, as I gather from what you posted, also a Pit, he's probably simply not "turned on" yet; you did say he was about a year old, right?

Yes, he's a year-old pit. They bought him because he's all white with bright blue eyes, and because they were also promised he'd get huge. And he is. He's still very much a puppy, and he and Orson played a couple of times, even though it made me nervous and I won't do it again. Warranted or not, I suspect if I allowed it to continue, he might've gotten aggressive with Orson one day. And at 100 lbs, he'd definitely have an advantage his 40 lb housemate dog did not.
Oh, good lord. sigh. Here's hoping the story doesn't turn into "We had to get rid of the dogs when the baby was born..." Wonder how they'd take it if you gave them a copy of "Child-proofing your dog"?

It's not a bad idea, especially as I could easily see them getting rid of the dogs because of this unplanned pregnancy. I'll think about it.

Cate
that's exactly what i would suspect. however, it seems that ... court cases, as i wouldn't want to hazard a guess.

Would you agree that if someone went to court, and a judgment was rendered, that they then become legally responsible ... decided that Cate was 20% responsible for what had happened, that the neighbors would then not be 100% legally responsible?

That wouldn't happen, though, because comparative/contributory negligence doesn't come into play when person A's dog (which is known to be dog aggressive) goes onto person B's property and rips up person B's dog.
Mustang Sally
Probably so.

ah, well, being a bizarro meanypants is really not bad thing.
Almost certainly so, because this is the second time I've posted the above.

oooh! you're a Double Bizarro Meanypants!
I don't quite understand what's with all the speculation about percentages of liability when Janet and Sarah, who live in the same city, have stated with certainty what would happen if this situation when to court, or was even reported to AC.

hmmm. *if* Cate could be held 20% responsible, would that mean the neighbors' dog would only be 80% killed if AC were notified.

shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com /
Probably so.

ah, well, being a bizarro meanypants is really not bad thing.

It's certainly not the worst thing I've been called.
oooh! you're a Double Bizarro Meanypants!

Kewl.
hmmm. *if* Cate could be held 20% responsible, would that mean the neighbors' dog would only be 80% killed if AC were notified.

You know, I hadn't thought of that.
I've been astounded at the number of people who place a large part of the responsibility for this incident on Cate. The only reason I initially suggested a 50/50 breakdown on the vet bills was because I thought there was an actual verbal agreement (which still doesn't change the fact that the neighbor's dog-aggressive dog came onto her property), and figured that under those circumstances, and to keep peace with a next-door neighbor, 50/50 might be acceptable. There have been some truly mind-boggling statements made in this thread.

Mustang Sally
You know, I hadn't thought of that.

my mind works in, um, mysterious ways.
I've been astounded at the number of people who place a large part of the responsibility for this incident on Cate.

the mind wobbles.
and figured that under those circumstances, and to keep peace with a next-door neighbor, 50/50 might be acceptable.

which is entirely reasonable, given that Cate is concerned about neighbor relations.

shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com /
my mind works in, um, mysterious ways.

Mysterious! That's the word I've been looking for!
I've been astounded at the number of people who place a large part of the responsibility for this incident on Cate.

the mind wobbles.

Particularly under all the weight of such lunacy.
and figured that under those circumstances, and to keep peace with a next-door neighbor, 50/50 might be acceptable.

which is entirely reasonable, given that Cate is concerned about neighbor relations.

And I wouldn't blame anyone for that. We have an crazy man living next door. He called the police when we put our fence up, he called the police when we increased the height, he'll undoubtedly call the police when we take trees down next week. Old, half-dead trees that are in our yard, and that drop branches in the yards, endangering the dogs, the fence and the houses and garages.
Mustang Sally
Show more