Dad Says Owners Should Insure "dangerous Dogs"

[Eileen]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/owners-should-in...00424-tkhn.html

THE father of a young boy savaged by a neighbour's husky has called on the NSW government to introduce a liability insurance scheme for owners of dangerous dog breeds.

Figures from the NSW government Dog Attack Register, released today, show 130 children were attacked by dogs between January and March this year.

Daniel Breen, 6, required plastic surgery after the husky mauled his face outside his home in Kearns, south-west Sydney, on April 3.

The dog was destroyed and the neighbour charged with ownership of a dog uncontrolled in a public place, and ownership of a dog which attacked a person, but for Peter Breen that is little comfort.

''His scarring is really bad; emotionally, he's wrecked. When we go out shopping, he pulls a hat down across his face so nobody sees him,'' Mr Breen said on Friday. ''As far as dogs go, he gets hysterical. It's ruined him.''

As a struggling single father of two, Mr Breen said medical and transport bills were likely to cripple him financially. While lawyers had advised him he could successfully sue, he feels it should not be his responsibility.

''That means more fees, more stress and there's still no guarantee of clawing any money back if the dog owners don't have any,'' he said, adding: ''If people are that desperate to own these sorts of dogs, they should be held accountable financially when something bad occurs.''

''I believe the state government should introduce a compulsory insurance scheme for dangerous breeds. It should be a case of no insurance, no dog.''

Mr Breen said his son was in Liverpool Hospital for five days and, during that time, ''three other kids came in after being attacked by dogs. That's when I realised how often this is happening''.

The Dog Attack Register shows that 666 attacks occurred between January and March.

The figure featured 536 adults and 130 children, an increase from the previous quarterly total of 470. Of those attacks, 131 people required medical treatment and 30 were admitted to hospital.

The Staffordshire bull terrier has topped the list of aggressive breeds for the second consecutive quarter (156 attacks), followed by the Australian cattle dog (93) and German shepherd (60). Blacktown council again recorded the highest number of attacks across the state with 78. Councils reported that 159 dogs were destroyed, an increase of 47 per cent from the previous quarter.

A spokeswoman for Local Government Minister Barbara Perry said under The Companion Animals Act, the owner of an attacking dog was not only exposed to criminal prosecution, including fines of up to $55,000 or two years' jail, but was liable in damages for any injury or loss occurring as a result of an attack.

Mr Breen said that, in reality, if a dog owner had no money the victim was ''back to square one''.

[GeckoTree]

I think they do that in the US. Aus would follow soon enough, it has in everything else.

[WreckitWhippet]

The dog was destroyed and the neighbour charged with ownership of a dog uncontrolled in a public place, and ownership of a dog which attacked a person, but for Peter Breen that is little comfort.

That bit says it all

Edited April 25, 2010 by SBT123

[mita]

A 'Yes' to the above.

The authorities should use criteria for assessing culpability in dog attacks, like the police do for traffic accidents.

And first on that list should be Owner Error.

Very sad how that child has been injured & the stress on his family's resources.

[Sandra777]

Yes, I remember it wasn't so many years ago now that car accidents were frequently reported as ''the car went out of control'' - now it's rare to hear this but common to hear ''the driver lost control of the vehicle''. Owner error should be investigated much more enthusiastically, but I guess the easy answer is to kill the dog and stick it on a list somewhere

[Cordelia]

As a struggling single father of two, Mr Breen said medical and transport bills were likely to cripple him financially.

Umm.. single dad... the child would have been covered by medicare.. he wouldn't have any medical expenses.

[grantwit]

As a struggling single father of two, Mr Breen said medical and transport bills were likely to cripple him financially.

Umm.. single dad... the child would have been covered by medicare.. he wouldn't have any medical expenses.

Not so. Unless he has top private health cover any ambulance and hospital to hospital transport would be out of pocket. not too sure on the medical bills, i believe that the initial hospital treatment is all covered, but if the child needs ongoing physio,perhaps plastic surgery for scarring etc, this would all be out of pocket.

[mita]

Yes, I remember it wasn't so many years ago now that car accidents were frequently reported as ''the car went out of control'' - now it's rare to hear this but common to hear ''the driver lost control of the vehicle''. Owner error should be investigated much more enthusiastically, but I guess the easy answer is to kill the dog and stick it on a list somewhere

Spot on! If serious dog bites/attacks could be investigated under relevant criteria, then a lot could be learned about preventing them.

[Black Bronson]

Most people don't know they have a dangerous dog until it bites someone which is often too late. Why would someone insure a dog for dangerous reactions if they genuinely thought their dog was ok. Isn't the dad saying all dogs should be insured in case they do cause an injury???

[poodlefan]

Someone should ask the insurance companies. I can't see any lining up to issue policies for owners of dangerous dogs.

The best insurance you can have is good socialisation, training and containment.

[Verdant Amphibian]

If the Dad had a healthcare card then the initial ambulance should have been covered.

The concept is ridiculous, there are so many things that can injure someone. Should someone who has a tiled floor get insurance because if a kid spilled juice on it they could slip, smack their head on the window sill and break their eye socket? It's this kind of thing that would lead to people needing to get personal indemnity insurance. It also would unfairly target people with large dogs and people on small incomes. Plus who would determine what makes a dangerous dog? Besides in the end plenty of the nastier dog attacks are made made unregistered dogs belonging to idiots, they don't register their dogs, there is no way they would insure them. So someone would still need to sue to try to get the money that the owner probably didn't have anyway. It's a silly, silly idea.

[steve11]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/owners-should-in...00424-tkhn.html

THE father of a young boy savaged by a neighbour's husky has called on the NSW government to introduce a liability insurance scheme for owners of dangerous dog breeds.

Figures from the NSW government Dog Attack Register, released today, show 130 children were attacked by dogs between January and March this year.

Daniel Breen, 6, required plastic surgery after the husky mauled his face outside his home in Kearns, south-west Sydney, on April 3.

The dog was destroyed and the neighbour charged with ownership of a dog uncontrolled in a public place, and ownership of a dog which attacked a person, but for Peter Breen that is little comfort.

''His scarring is really bad; emotionally, he's wrecked. When we go out shopping, he pulls a hat down across his face so nobody sees him,'' Mr Breen said on Friday. ''As far as dogs go, he gets hysterical. It's ruined him.''

As a struggling single father of two, Mr Breen said medical and transport bills were likely to cripple him financially. While lawyers had advised him he could successfully sue, he feels it should not be his responsibility.

''That means more fees, more stress and there's still no guarantee of clawing any money back if the dog owners don't have any,'' he said, adding: ''If people are that desperate to own these sorts of dogs, they should be held accountable financially when something bad occurs.''

''I believe the state government should introduce a compulsory insurance scheme for dangerous breeds. It should be a case of no insurance, no dog.''

Mr Breen said his son was in Liverpool Hospital for five days and, during that time, ''three other kids came in after being attacked by dogs. That's when I realised how often this is happening''.

The Dog Attack Register shows that 666 attacks occurred between January and March.

The figure featured 536 adults and 130 children, an increase from the previous quarterly total of 470. Of those attacks, 131 people required medical treatment and 30 were admitted to hospital.

The Staffordshire bull terrier has topped the list of aggressive breeds for the second consecutive quarter (156 attacks), followed by the Australian cattle dog (93) and German shepherd (60). Blacktown council again recorded the highest number of attacks across the state with 78. Councils reported that 159 dogs were destroyed, an increase of 47 per cent from the previous quarter.

A spokeswoman for Local Government Minister Barbara Perry said under The Companion Animals Act, the owner of an attacking dog was not only exposed to criminal prosecution, including fines of up to $55,000 or two years' jail, but was liable in damages for any injury or loss occurring as a result of an attack.

Mr Breen said that, in reality, if a dog owner had no money the victim was ''back to square one''.

I feel for all concerned but since the Husky is not on the list how would this have helped anything.

As for the validity of such lists further research shows that pitbulls/am staffs & any crossbreed resembling said breeds is called a Staffordshire Bull Terrier which they most certainly are NOT.

This lack of knowledge regarding breeds & crossbreeds by the list makers & supposed experts is another example of why BSL is a farce.

[whippets]

As a struggling single father of two, Mr Breen said medical and transport bills were likely to cripple him financially.

Umm.. single dad... the child would have been covered by medicare.. he wouldn't have any medical expenses.

Depends if he has a healthcare card. If he did it would be free.

A 20 minute ambulance journey costs around $2,200.

Edit to add: I'm referring to transport here.

Edited April 28, 2010 by whippets

[sandgrubber]

In reviewing dog attack statistics, I think the most likely GBH charge is the scenario where a dog attacks a kid from its family on premises. The ultimate cause is dog owners not understanding their dogs and not taking adequate control. Insurance is an ok way to mitigate against dogs that may roam (though I'd prefer something more personal, directed at the owners). But somehow it needs to be drummed through everyone's thick heads that dog + small child is catastrophe waiting to happen. Sometimes even 'nice' doggies aren't so nice. And sometimes children are very stupid in the way they relate to dogs.