Family Sues Council Over Fatal Dog Mauling Of Child

[samoyedman]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-sues-over-fatal-dog-mauling-20110509-1efw4.html

A MAN whose four-year-old daughter was mauled to death in a dog attack is suing the local council for damages, claiming it failed to act on complaints about the risk posed by the dogs.

The District Court heard the Wilson family kept six pig-hunting dogs in their backyard at Warren, 120 kilometres north-west of Dubbo, where Tyra Kuehne was attacked in June 2006 after wandering from her home nearby.

It is believed Tyra was mauled by at least one or two dogs, mastiff or boxer cross-breeds. Tom Wilson found the girl fatally wounded in his yard. She died in hospital.

The judge, Michael Elkaim, yesterday questioned why pig-hunting dogs were kept in the yard. ''It's not like they were a bunch of poodles,'' he said. ''These are trained killers.''

At the time, the Companion Animals Act defined a dangerous dog, which could be subject to control requirements, as one that attacked or killed a person or animal without provocation, or repeatedly threatened to attack or chased a person or animal.

The definition was expanded after Tyra's death to include dogs used for hunting. Other amendments impose a duty on officials to report dog attacks to councils.

Tyra's father, Peter Kuehne, and her brother Dylan, 11, are suing Warren Shire Council for negligence, claiming it failed to use its authority to declare the dogs dangerous, or have Mr Wilson secure the dogs. They are seeking damages for shock.

The court heard Mr Wilson's dogs roamed Warren's streets and two people had previously been bitten. A woman and her children were bailed up at their house and Mr Kuehne had phoned the council about the animals chasing his sons.

A council ranger spoke to Mr Wilson numerous times about the dogs, giving him ''his last warning'' in May 2004.

The Kuehnes' barrister, Trevor Boyd, said a ''powerful tool to protect the citizens of Warren'' was available to the council, and had it enforced the legislation the accident would not have occurred.

Robert Sheldon, SC, for the council, said while complaints were made about ''the Wilson dogs'', not every incident was reported to the council. The identity of individual animals was also an issue.

''What were these dogs doing in the backyard,'' Judge Elkaim asked. ''Ask [former NSW premiers] Mr [bob] Carr or Mr [Morris] Iemma,'' Mr Sheldon replied. ''There was no law against them.''

The case continues.

Edited May 9, 2011 by samoyedman

[poodlefan]

The judge, Michael Elkaim, yesterday questioned why pig-hunting dogs were kept in the yard. ''It's not like they were a bunch of poodles,'' he said. ''These are trained killers.''

Hardly helpful.. more breed stereotyping.

The court heard Mr Wilson's dogs roamed Warren's streets and two people had previously been bitten. A woman and her children were bailed up at their house and Mr Kuehne had phoned the council about the animals chasing his sons.

That's the bit that matters. If this is true and the council had failed to act then they're looking good for the case to be proven against them.

Edited May 9, 2011 by poodlefan

[WreckitWhippet]

The dogs weren't roaming at that time. The child entered the yard and was killed.

If they want to "blame" anyone, it's rests with whoever was supposed to be caring for the poor child.

[poodlefan]

The dogs weren't roaming at that time. The child entered the yard and was killed.

If they want to "blame" anyone, it's rests with whoever was supposed to be caring for the poor child.

Very true RSG but if the dogs had been declared dangerous and contained in accordance with DD regs, they'd have been in a roofed pen. I doubt the child could have gotten to them.

Its clear that more than one person is responsible for what happened. However only one of those involved in the case has deep pockets - council. Unless the dogs were required to be penned, their owner is not legally at fault.

Frankly if this matter makes more councils get off their arses to enforce DD regulations, I call that a good thing. If that had always been the case, we'd never have been lumped with BSL.

Edited May 9, 2011 by poodlefan

[sandgrubber]

The dogs weren't roaming at that time. The child entered the yard and was killed.

If they want to "blame" anyone, it's rests with whoever was supposed to be caring for the poor child.

Very true RSG but if the dogs had been declared dangerous and contained in accordance with DD regs, they'd have been in a roofed pen. I doubt the child could have gotten to them.

The kid was a four year old! The gate couldn't have been much if the child entered the yard. Kids do sneak out of the house and go walkabout.

I hope they win the lawsuit, and the council, and other councils as well, get the message that DD regs need to be enforced. Poor parents.

[KatrinaM]

I feel the bigger portion of blame needs to be afforded the mother. If you leave small children without adult supervision all day while you spend your time at an RSL then you cant be blaming other people for what happens, however tragic.

Its funny how the story changed - the dogs owners and at least the mother of the child were friends - from the best I can recall dad lived away and they were no longer partners. I for one wouldnt be comfortable letting my kids play with a dog I had rung the council about because it chased my other children. Someting doesnt seem quite right and I bet it has a lot to do with cash. Sadly all the money in the world wont bring a little girl back.

The dogs were known to Tyra, it is thought she went there to feed them a dead bird she found along the road (somebody had taken it off her earlier and taken her home) and play the "chasing the hose game" she played with the dogs on previous occassions.It is thought a dog got loose or was already loose and a fight broke out between two of the dogs either over the food or from playing. The dogs were chained up, inside a six foot high fence inside a closed yard. Not perfect but doesnt sound like they were kept irresponsibly, even if they may have been two years or more previously.

Really though how much more accountability can councils and dog owners take? Parents need to keep their children responsibly or an already overworked DOCS needs to step in just like dog owners need to keep their dogs responsibly or have an already overworked council step in.

[Meea]

I feel the bigger portion of blame needs to be afforded the mother. If you leave small children without adult supervision all day while you spend your time at an RSL then you cant be blaming other people for what happens, however tragic.

Its funny how the story changed - the dogs owners and at least the mother of the child were friends - from the best I can recall dad lived away and they were no longer partners. I for one wouldnt be comfortable letting my kids play with a dog I had rung the council about because it chased my other children. Someting doesnt seem quite right and I bet it has a lot to do with cash. Sadly all the money in the world wont bring a little girl back.

The dogs were known to Tyra, it is thought she went there to feed them a dead bird she found along the road (somebody had taken it off her earlier and taken her home) and play the "chasing the hose game" she played with the dogs on previous occassions.It is thought a dog got loose or was already loose and a fight broke out between two of the dogs either over the food or from playing. The dogs were chained up, inside a six foot high fence inside a closed yard. Not perfect but doesnt sound like they were kept irresponsibly, even if they may have been two years or more previously.

Really though how much more accountability can councils and dog owners take? Parents need to keep their children responsibly or an already overworked DOCS needs to step in just like dog owners need to keep their dogs responsibly or have an already overworked council step in.

+1 this is the version I had heard from dog folk I know who lived in a few streets over. Could be more a DOCs issue than a Dog Ranger one.

[Leelaa17]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-sues-over-fatal-dog-mauling-20110509-1efw4.html

A MAN whose four-year-old daughter was mauled to death in a dog attack is suing the local council for damages, claiming it failed to act on complaints about the risk posed by the dogs.

The District Court heard the Wilson family kept six pig-hunting dogs in their backyard at Warren, 120 kilometres north-west of Dubbo, where Tyra Kuehne was attacked in June 2006 after wandering from her home nearby.

It is believed Tyra was mauled by at least one or two dogs, mastiff or boxer cross-breeds. Tom Wilson found the girl fatally wounded in his yard. She died in hospital.

The judge, Michael Elkaim, yesterday questioned why pig-hunting dogs were kept in the yard. ''It's not like they were a bunch of poodles,'' he said. ''These are trained killers.''

At the time, the Companion Animals Act defined a dangerous dog, which could be subject to control requirements, as one that attacked or killed a person or animal without provocation, or repeatedly threatened to attack or chased a person or animal.

The definition was expanded after Tyra's death to include dogs used for hunting. Other amendments impose a duty on officials to report dog attacks to councils.

Tyra's father, Peter Kuehne, and her brother Dylan, 11, are suing Warren Shire Council for negligence, claiming it failed to use its authority to declare the dogs dangerous, or have Mr Wilson secure the dogs. They are seeking damages for shock.

The court heard Mr Wilson's dogs roamed Warren's streets and two people had previously been bitten. A woman and her children were bailed up at their house and Mr Kuehne had phoned the council about the animals chasing his sons.

A council ranger spoke to Mr Wilson numerous times about the dogs, giving him ''his last warning'' in May 2004.

The Kuehnes' barrister, Trevor Boyd, said a ''powerful tool to protect the citizens of Warren'' was available to the council, and had it enforced the legislation the accident would not have occurred.

Robert Sheldon, SC, for the council, said while complaints were made about ''the Wilson dogs'', not every incident was reported to the council. The identity of individual animals was also an issue.

''What were these dogs doing in the backyard,'' Judge Elkaim asked. ''Ask [former NSW premiers] Mr [bob] Carr or Mr [Morris] Iemma,'' Mr Sheldon replied. ''There was no law against them.''

The case continues.

I'm confused about this statement? Why wouldn't they be in the back yard?

Am I missing something with that statement?

I agree with Katrina when she says that parents should take responsibility for their kids. I do think this, but I don't have adequate info on what actually happened to the girl to know whether or not it was dog owner negligence or girl's parents negligence. I do think that parents need to keep an eye on their kids, but then again, we all know that to do that 100% of the time is impossible. Unfortunately it takes only a second to have everything go wrong

- like the baby that drowned in the dogs waterbowl. The parents were apparently in the next room or something, I'm not sure, but they weren't charged with anything. They apparently only looked away for a second. That's all it takes.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Leelaa17

[RottnBullies]

I feel the bigger portion of blame needs to be afforded the mother. If you leave small children without adult supervision all day while you spend your time at an RSL then you cant be blaming other people for what happens, however tragic.

Really though how much more accountability can councils and dog owners take? Parents need to keep their children responsibly or an already overworked DOCS needs to step in just like dog owners need to keep their dogs responsibly or have an already overworked council step in.

I totally agree

[tdierikx]

In a world where we actually have a need to put labels on clothing that says "Do not iron whilst wearing", is it any wonder?

In this day and age where the average parent is terrified to let their kids out of their sight in case a pervert grabs them, why do we have a 4 year old child wandering the streets unattended?

How much more does a dog owner need to do - above and beyond keeping his dogs chained up in their OWN back yard - to keep someone ELSE'S child safe from them?

Can't sue the owner, he hadn't broken any laws and appears to have been keeping his dogs contained... what the heck, we'll sue the council instead... it HAS to be someone's fault our 4 year old child went into someone else's yard without anyone seeming to care where she went or what she might be doing...

All the money in the world won't bring that child back, nor will it stop the nightmare that those truly responsible for her safety are now living.

Run free with all of our gone but not forgotten fur friends little Tyra - they will keep you safe forevermore...

T.

[Leelaa17]

In a world where we actually have a need to put labels on clothing that says "Do not iron whilst wearing", is it any wonder?

In this day and age where the average parent is terrified to let their kids out of their sight in case a pervert grabs them, why do we have a 4 year old child wandering the streets unattended?

How much more does a dog owner need to do - above and beyond keeping his dogs chained up in their OWN back yard - to keep someone ELSE'S child safe from them?

Can't sue the owner, he hadn't broken any laws and appears to have been keeping his dogs contained... what the heck, we'll sue the council instead... it HAS to be someone's fault our 4 year old child went into someone else's yard without anyone seeming to care where she went or what she might be doing...

All the money in the world won't bring that child back, nor will it stop the nightmare that those truly responsible for her safety are now living.

Run free with all of our gone but not forgotten fur friends little Tyra - they will keep you safe forevermore...

T.

I agree. Someone needs to be blamed but apparently blaming themselves is not an option.

[mac'ella]

its a similar situation to kids wandering off and drowning in a neighbours pool, or onto roads.the neighbours may think their kids wont go near the pool so why fix the gate but as so often happens its not their kids in danger,even the most diligent parents can be distracted for that short moment that it takes,Ive seen it happen where there was a party down the road, the roller door was left up a bit and one of the guests toddlers escaped out onto the road,luckilly I was walking my dogs at that time and was able to run and grab her out of the path of a passing car,when I took her back the parents werent even aware she had gone.They were so shocked at what could have been, but it was someone else who didnt shut the door properly so who would have been at fault?,the parents, the driver or the hosts?

[tdierikx]

Sure, it's easy to lose sight of where your kids are if they are particularly resourceful little buggers - but does that mean the rest of the planet are responsible for what trouble that child could conceivably get into? How on earth can the council be responsible for a child going into a backyard of someone else's house to be attacked by chained up dogs? It appears that the owner of the dogs was complying with whatever they were told to do to contain said dogs - so neither he nor the council should be held accountable IMHO...

I was an incorrigible toddler myself. My mother was busy attending to my new baby brother one day, and I opened the front door and headed towards the park across the road - never made it to the park... suing the driver that hit me wasn't even in the options considered during the aftermath of ambulances, hospitals, and physio sessions. What my parents DID consider (and do) was to keep a MUCH better eye on me from that point on... errr!

These things can and do happen, and as tragic as it is to read about a little girl's horrible fate, why is it that these things are always ending at a courthouse for compensation nowadays? Money and apportioning of blame to others will not ease the pain of losing your little girl one iota. In fact, the court proceedings are probably going to make the nightmare even more real and traumatic.

T.

[tobie]

I don't really know much about what happened but in NSW dogs used for the purposes of hunting must be kept in a child proof enclosure exactly the same as restricted breeds as per the CAA which was clearly not done in this case. It is councils responsibilty to enforce this so I presume this is why the council is being sued also if there was prior history with these dogs and council had done nothing this again leaves them at risk of being sued. It's a very complicated matter as it is very hard to prove a dog is a hunting dog unless the owner admits it. If these dogs were hunting dogs and the owner did not have the dogs in a child proof enclosure they are liable.

Regardless of all this I can't even imagine the pain and suffering that poor child went through and hopefully this sort of thing will never happen again to anyones child.

[KatrinaM]

Tobie,

This case is the reason hunting dogs are now treated as if they were dangerous and required to be housed accordingly. Prior to this hunting dogs were treated just like every other dog.

Cheers

Katrina

[tdierikx]

Changing the law after the fact is one thing... trying to backdate it and apply it to a case that occurred before that law was changed is a bit rich.

T.

[tobie]

Tobie,

This case is the reason hunting dogs are now treated as if they were dangerous and required to be housed accordingly. Prior to this hunting dogs were treated just like every other dog.

Cheers

Katrina

Thanks Katrina

Like I said I am not really sure about what happened in this case. I don't even know when it happened but I do know what the laws are in NSW and assumed these are the reasons council is being sued as per my previous post but like you said if this came in after the death of the child obviously this can not be used to sue someone.

[tobie]

Changing the law after the fact is one thing... trying to backdate it and apply it to a case that occurred before that law was changed is a bit rich.

T.

[Zug Zug]

If a 4 year old child can enter the yard unassisted, it can't have been a very secure yard.

[KatrinaM]

I think tdierikx is saying that its a bit rich to try and sue the council because they didnt enforce a law that didnt exsist at that time.

I became really interested in this case, not just because of how much damage it caused for hunting dog owners but also because Tyra was the same age as my little girls and it really hit home how horrible it would be to lose them. Its something I dont think any parent should ever have to go through.