Liability

[mumof4girls]

I'm sure it's against the law to photograph/video minors without permission..

It's only against the law if they are on private property unless you can see them from a public location (eg you can photograph someone in their front yard provided you are on the street when you do it). The law is the same for both adults and children. It is not illegal to use surveillance cameras on your own property provided they are not set up in such a way that they also film neighbouring properties.

Thanks Snook, I have previously worked in child care for many years so that's where I was coming from:-) different situation, although I am still surprised you can photograph a 5 and 2 yr old..

Edit sp

Edited December 29, 2011 by mumof4girls

[Dame Aussie]

I'm sure it's against the law to photograph/video minors without permission..

It's only against the law if they are on private property unless you can see them from a public location (eg you can photograph someone in their front yard provided you are on the street when you do it). The law is the same for both adults and children. It is not illegal to use surveillance cameras on your own property provided they are not set up in such a way that they also film neighbouring properties.

Thanks Snook, I have previously worked in child care for many years so that's where I was coming from:-) different situation, although I am still surprised you can photograph a 5 and 2 yr old..

Edit sp

Other countries have different laws but in Australia the law is basically written in such a way that people (regardless of age) don't have the right to not be photographed in a public place or on private land that is visible from a public place. So change rooms would be illegal but the beach isn't.

Makes sense when you consider we're all being filmed on CCTV anyway these days.

[laneka]

I thought it was law that you only have to provide access to your front door and meters. If a person is else where on your property they are tresspassing.

Can you put up front gates to stop this child and his/her dog from accessing your driveway?

[Winterpaws]

I am such a worry wart I would either erect a front fence and make it so that a child could not enter or I would change my back fencing to something like colorbond and then padlock it.

My fences are 6 - 7 ft colorbond and have had padlocks on them since the day we bought the place

It is a crappy situation for you though as the mother should be controlling her kids!

[Lugeanjaam]

Funny you should mention that Winterpaws. My hubby and I just decided to get some quotes for 6ft fencing. We only recently purchased this house and it was on our 'to do list' but it has just moved to top priority. It should solve the problem at hand and as I plan to get another larger dog most likely this year it something we would need to do before this happened anyway.

Thank you everyone for your input. Suki is only having supervised outside time until we get this fencing sorted but as she is mainly an inside girl who only goes in the yard to do her business and eat her bones she won't really care. In regards to the children entering our property all I can do is advise the appropriate authorities every time it happens. Unfortunately we have no control over people's behaviour. In her words her son is 'an escape artist' and I think she has put it all in the too hard basket. As far as the little Foxie is concerned he is just the sweetest thing who does not let the little boy out of his sight. Even in their yard I can see him trotting right behind him. He is his little protector, af least someone is looking out for him:(.

[lilmisssascha83]

sadly i believe you are liable regardless if the child enters your property. i remember when i studied law and was told if someone breaks into your place steals your stuff then trips over a hose or something you are liable and they could sue you despite the fact of why they are on your property. stupid i know. i cant believe the parents just letting the kids wander thoufh

[Fuzzycuddles]

Put up a sign (as many business/ factory sites do) stating you accept all liability etc should anything happen while you're on this property?

Accept no liability whoops!

I'm aware liability can be shared, but I was curious in response to post before mine if a sign stating you won't accept liability would have any effect?..

Edited December 29, 2011 by Fuzzycuddles

[rebelsquest]

Put up a sign (as many business/ factory sites do) stating you accept all liability etc should anything happen while you're on this property?

Do you mean no liability? Why would OP want to put up a sign accepting liability?

Not sure if a sign stating OP accepts no liability would stand up legally if anything happened anyway.

[megan_]

You can't just say that you don't accept liability.

Liability can be shared (ad it was in the hunting dog case). The parents were liable for letting their girl roam but the dog owners shared a % liability for not properly securing the dog.

I'm a bit surprised that so many people (not the OP who is fixing the problem) don't think they're liable if their dog isn't adequately contained (anything other than solid fencing and locked gates isn't adequate).

I wonder how many people understand the legal and financial ramifications if your dog bites someone, regardless of how stupid they were being st the time.

[tdierikx]

I'd report the wandering kids - and their propensity for trespassing and teasing your dog - to the Police. Make them take your statement in writing and file it. At least then you will have more leeway IF something does happen before you get your new fence up.

T.

[pebbles]

Probably the laws have changed now but a few years ago one of my big dogs bit the Solicitor's secretary when she came in the back way to my place although there was clear access to the front. She was a nasty person and I know if she could have sued me, she would have.

[mace]

You can't just say that you don't accept liability.

Liability can be shared (ad it was in the hunting dog case). The parents were liable for letting their girl roam but the dog owners shared a % liability for not properly securing the dog.

I'm a bit surprised that so many people (not the OP who is fixing the problem) don't think they're liable if their dog isn't adequately contained (anything other than solid fencing and locked gates isn't adequate).

I wonder how many people understand the legal and financial ramifications if your dog bites someone, regardless of how stupid they were being st the time.

Dogs can bite people liability free in some circumstances, it depends on the situation. It's like in a public place, a leashed dog can injure an unleashed dog, the leashed dog will get the benefit of the doubt unless there is strong witnessed evidence that someone with a leashed dog instigated their dog to attack. A leashed dog can bite a person who attempts to assault the handler that type of thing. In the home, a dog can bite an intruder depending on state law and their respective companion animal acts, a dog biting an intruder comes under provocation which is an accepted defence. Anyone can sue anyone, but it costs a lot of money to do that and would be doubtful when a dog owner hasn't breached any dog containment laws that such a suit would be successful. I seriously doubt in the OP's case that anything would come of it from a council/police perspective if the kid got bitten at the fence especially if his hand ended up between a fence fight with two dogs involved, it may have been his dog who bit him, although best not have to put the scenario to the test, but I don't think personally from a legal aspect there is anything much to worry about in this situation.

It's not a blanket thing across the board if your dog bites someone you are down the creek without a paddle, there are some circumstances where an injury by a dog doesn't result in prosecution.

Edited December 29, 2011 by mace

[Greytmate]

You can't just say that you don't accept liability.

Liability can be shared (ad it was in the hunting dog case). The parents were liable for letting their girl roam but the dog owners shared a % liability for not properly securing the dog.

I'm a bit surprised that so many people (not the OP who is fixing the problem) don't think they're liable if their dog isn't adequately contained (anything other than solid fencing and locked gates isn't adequate).

I wonder how many people understand the legal and financial ramifications if your dog bites someone, regardless of how stupid they were being st the time.

Dogs can bite people liability free in some circumstances, it depends on the situation. It's like in a public place, a leashed dog can injure an unleashed dog, the leashed dog will get the benefit of the doubt unless there is strong witnessed evidence that someone with a leashed dog instigated their dog to attack. A leashed dog can bite a person who attempts to assault the handler that type of thing. In the home, a dog can bite an intruder depending on state law and their respective companion animal acts, a dog biting an intruder comes under provocation which is an accepted defence. Anyone can sue anyone, but it costs a lot of money to do that and would be doubtful when a dog owner hasn't breached any dog containment laws that such a suit would be successful. I seriously doubt in the OP's case that anything would come of it from a council/police perspective if the kid got bitten at the fence especially if his hand ended up between a fence fight with two dogs involved, it may have been his dog who bit him, although best not have to put the scenario to the test, but I don't think personally from a legal aspect there is anything much to worry about in this situation.

It's not a blanket thing across the board if your dog bites someone you are down the creek without a paddle, there are some circumstances where an injury by a dog doesn't result in prosecution.

The OP has QLD as her home state on her profile. The dog control acts here do not allow for provocation as an excuse for dog aggression.

A problem caused by a dog in QLD may not result in prosecution of the owner, but it can result in the dog being seized and possibly destroyed. There is no court case or hearing, just a council worker's decision.

[megan_]

It can also result in a civil suit. also, someone walking down your driveway is not trespassing.

[mace]

You can't just say that you don't accept liability.

Liability can be shared (ad it was in the hunting dog case). The parents were liable for letting their girl roam but the dog owners shared a % liability for not properly securing the dog.

I'm a bit surprised that so many people (not the OP who is fixing the problem) don't think they're liable if their dog isn't adequately contained (anything other than solid fencing and locked gates isn't adequate).

I wonder how many people understand the legal and financial ramifications if your dog bites someone, regardless of how stupid they were being st the time.

Dogs can bite people liability free in some circumstances, it depends on the situation. It's like in a public place, a leashed dog can injure an unleashed dog, the leashed dog will get the benefit of the doubt unless there is strong witnessed evidence that someone with a leashed dog instigated their dog to attack. A leashed dog can bite a person who attempts to assault the handler that type of thing. In the home, a dog can bite an intruder depending on state law and their respective companion animal acts, a dog biting an intruder comes under provocation which is an accepted defence. Anyone can sue anyone, but it costs a lot of money to do that and would be doubtful when a dog owner hasn't breached any dog containment laws that such a suit would be successful. I seriously doubt in the OP's case that anything would come of it from a council/police perspective if the kid got bitten at the fence especially if his hand ended up between a fence fight with two dogs involved, it may have been his dog who bit him, although best not have to put the scenario to the test, but I don't think personally from a legal aspect there is anything much to worry about in this situation.

It's not a blanket thing across the board if your dog bites someone you are down the creek without a paddle, there are some circumstances where an injury by a dog doesn't result in prosecution.

The OP has QLD as her home state on her profile. The dog control acts here do not allow for provocation as an excuse for dog aggression.

A problem caused by a dog in QLD may not result in prosecution of the owner, but it can result in the dog being seized and possibly destroyed. There is no court case or hearing, just a council worker's decision.

No that's incorrect, here is the QLD legislation I think most states now are the same

1) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against section

194 or 195 for the defendant to prove—

(a) the dog attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to,

the other person (the complainant) or the animal—

(i) as a result of the dog being attacked, mistreated,

provoked or teased by the complainant or the

animal; or

(ii) to protect the defendant, or a person accompanying

the defendant (the accompanying person), or the

defendant’s or accompanying person’s property;

[Ness1409]

What's a search reference I can use for hunting dog case?

I just googled it, I think this is the right case, the child's name was Tyra Kuehne

2006 July 22nd Three Pig-hunting dogs.Tyra Kuehne, 4, was mauled to death by dogs near her home in Warren in central New South Wales. NSW The young girl went missing from her family home in Warren, near Dubbo, and was found in a neighbouring yard on Wednesday night with fatal head, neck and torso injuries after being mauled by three Pig-hunting dogs. The 4 year old girl climbed two fences and was found dead in hunting dogs enclosure, leading to legislation change in NSW.

[mace]

What's a search reference I can use for hunting dog case?

I just googled it, I think this is the right case, the child's name was Tyra Kuehne

2006 July 22nd Three Pig-hunting dogs.Tyra Kuehne, 4, was mauled to death by dogs near her home in Warren in central New South Wales. NSW The young girl went missing from her family home in Warren, near Dubbo, and was found in a neighbouring yard on Wednesday night with fatal head, neck and torso injuries after being mauled by three Pig-hunting dogs. The 4 year old girl climbed two fences and was found dead in hunting dogs enclosure, leading to legislation change in NSW.

I read through that case, what a terrible tragedy One thing surprised me that the crux of the matter was had the council declared the dogs dangerous previously the poor little girl would be still alive. I would have thought responsible parental supervision of a 4 year old would have had the same result, however that factor was never mentioned

It seems like poor parental supervision of kids is accepted and expected, like a kid gets knocked over by a car it's more the driver's fault nowdays, we used to get a smack for playing near the road in the 60's. I don't get it

Edited December 30, 2011 by mace

[emgem]

I read through that case, what a terrible tragedy One thing surprised me that the crux of the matter was had the council declared the dogs dangerous previously the poor little girl would be still alive. I would have thought responsible parental supervision of a 4 year old would have had the same result, however that factor was never mentioned

It seems like poor parental supervision of kids is accepted and expected, like a kid gets knocked over by a car it's more the driver's fault nowdays, we used to get a smack for playing near the road in the 60's. I don't get it

I think that is mostly how the newspapers reported the verdict. The actual amounts awarded are quite low, which suggests to me that the judge apportioned most of the responsibility at the parent who let the child roam.

Having said that there is a trend in newspaper reporting never to criticise the person (or guardian) of someone bitten by a dog ie it is always the dogs fault. A few months ago there was a boy attacked by a dog in north west sydney. Newspaper accounts made it sound like the dog just leapt the fence and attacked him. Word on the street (read at the dog park) says that the kids were tormenting the dog shortly before it attacked them. Naturally word on the street is not the most reliable of sources, but the account makes more sense that way.

[mace]

I read through that case, what a terrible tragedy One thing surprised me that the crux of the matter was had the council declared the dogs dangerous previously the poor little girl would be still alive. I would have thought responsible parental supervision of a 4 year old would have had the same result, however that factor was never mentioned

It seems like poor parental supervision of kids is accepted and expected, like a kid gets knocked over by a car it's more the driver's fault nowdays, we used to get a smack for playing near the road in the 60's. I don't get it

I think that is mostly how the newspapers reported the verdict. The actual amounts awarded are quite low, which suggests to me that the judge apportioned most of the responsibility at the parent who let the child roam.

Having said that there is a trend in newspaper reporting never to criticise the person (or guardian) of someone bitten by a dog ie it is always the dogs fault. A few months ago there was a boy attacked by a dog in north west sydney. Newspaper accounts made it sound like the dog just leapt the fence and attacked him. Word on the street (read at the dog park) says that the kids were tormenting the dog shortly before it attacked them. Naturally word on the street is not the most reliable of sources, but the account makes more sense that way.

I agree, especially kids can do some silly things. I had a couple of silly kids a few months ago jump out at me from behind a wall making barking noises at my dog, jeepers, if my dog was reactive, one was in lunging distance of the leash and a reactive dog could have taken half the kid's face off, by the time you react and pull the leash in the damage is done but this type of thing isn't the dog or owners fault at all. There was one I remember someone had tied their dog up at a shopping centre, ok probably a silly move, but none the less a tied up dog is no threat, but some kid wound the dog up and got bitten and of course it hit the fan?. Why didn't he leave the dog alone, it could only get to the end of the leash?