Family Sues Council Over Fatal Dog Mauling Of Child

[poodlefan]

I wouldn't mind reading that judgement.

me too

Ask and you shall receive.

Link to judgment

Edited May 25, 2011 by poodlefan

[WreckitWhippet]

I'm still at a loss ( correct me if I've read this wrong) but the fact that the dogs were used for hunting, should play no part in councils liability, as the amendment to the CAA, that saw "hunting dogs" automatically declared dangerous, was 12 months or more after Tyra's death.

It was her death that lead to the amendemnt to the CAA.

If council was found to be liable, for failing to act on complaints, then so be it.

I guess that neither the Mother or the neighbour with the dogs had any money and they weren't worth pursuing.

[Quickasyoucan]

I'm still at a loss ( correct me if I've read this wrong) but the fact that the dogs were used for hunting, should play no part in councils liability, as the amendment to the CAA, that saw "hunting dogs" automatically declared dangerous, was 12 months or more after Tyra's death.

It was her death that lead to the amendemnt to the CAA.

If council was found to be liable, for failing to act on complaints, then so be it.

I guess that neither the Mother or the neighbour with the dogs had any money and they weren't worth pursuing.

Seems like a question of find the Defendant with money and sue, I see in the judgment it even notes that no action was brought against Mr Wilson.

The argument by the council about the fact that Wilson was unlikely to have built any enclosures even had the dogs been declared dangerous is an interesting one. After all he had a history of non-compliance with anything.

There is a certain mentality of finding someone else to blame....

Not to take away from the tragedy of the poor girl's death and by the sounds of it her life wasn't that rosy either

Edited May 25, 2011 by Quickasyoucan

[Winterpaws]

I'm still at a loss ( correct me if I've read this wrong) but the fact that the dogs were used for hunting, should play no part in councils liability, as the amendment to the CAA, that saw "hunting dogs" automatically declared dangerous, was 12 months or more after Tyra's death.

It was her death that lead to the amendemnt to the CAA.

If council was found to be liable, for failing to act on complaints, then so be it.

I guess that neither the Mother or the neighbour with the dogs had any money and they weren't worth pursuing.

My take is that they didn't plead a breach of statutory duty but rather negligence.

Only half way through judgement. That poor little kid

edit - I see what you are saying now. That the enclosures would not have been a requirement of the act at the time of or prior to the incident? What happened wit dangerous dog declarations prior to then?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Winterpaws

[KatrinaM]

I havent finished it yet either - but it seems council couldnt really do much, nobody wanted to officially complain because they didnt want trouble with the dogs owners. It seems some stories have changed along the way as well.

[Winterpaws]

I havent finished it yet either - but it seems council couldnt really do much, nobody wanted to officially complain because they didnt want trouble with the dogs owners. It seems some stories have changed along the way as well.

Really? I thought that Council had ample notice of issues with the dogs. What a same the rangers diaries got stolen from his car........

What I found more interesting was that they did not sue the owner of the dogs.

Personally I think that there will be a lot more law suits in relation to dog attacks.

[KatrinaM]

When you read through there are a number of people who didnt want to formally complain because they didnt want to have problems with the dogs owners. One of the dogs that was later identified as attacking a lady was not even born at the time. So it seems there were issues with not being able to identify which dog would have been at fault in any given incedent to declare the individual dangerous and the lack of formal complaints. I spoke with a ranger recently about his frustration that people want to complain but dont wish to lodge formal complaints that he can act on because they dont want a neighbour problems.

[Quickasyoucan]

I don't know enough about this type of law to know whether they would have taken into consideration the role of other parties' negligence in the size of the award? Or can the court only deal with the role of the parties in front of them?

Clearly the dog owner played a role in this, but he obviously has no money.

Clearly the child's mother played a role in this, though no real mention is made of her currently and would doubt she has any money either.

Don't like the chances of any of that award being used for any good given Mr Kuehne's long history of drug abuse, brushes with the law, unemployment etc as per the judgment.

Regardless of this court decision, I still think both parents need to take responsibility for a 4 year old child regularly wandering the streets and on this occasion with a dead chicken.

[Tempus Fugit]

Reading the judgement, CAA and earlier posts:

I am confused as to what is a vermin animal:

• wild pigs apparently are not vermin;
  
• rats and mice are;
  

so what is the case with wild rabbits, cats and foxes? Are they small enough to be classed as vermin? If not, are livestock protection dogs that kill say, a fox, at risk of being declared dangerous? -

A pet dog is allowed to attack somebody who come over the back fence or break into the house is no worries,

It would appear that whilst the CAA protects a dog owner from being sued for damages if their dog attacks a trespasser, the dog could still be declared dangerous by a ranger or court if they chose to do so?