MD Legislation now says pitbulls are "dangerous"

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by drivingdaisy

The stranger or the dog? haha

Depends

[VenusDoom]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

Unbelieveable...THESE are the people who make our laws!? Oh, wait, this was a RETIRED judge that made this decision. Screw going through legislative hearings and any/all scientific data to determine if ALL pitbulls, and pitbull mixes, let's just lump them all into one, bad group. You know, the sh!tty owners, ghetto thugs, loony's ALL give pits a bad name, and I'm sick and tired of being lumped into that group just because I own a pitbull.

Now, if someone breaks in my house, and my dog bites them, I can get sued just because she's a pit bull? You bet...

Nearly 50% of people in Baltimore are renters, and now that landlords can be held liable, they are requiring that people get rid of them, or risk eviction.

Maryland Court of Appeals: Pit bulls are inherently dangerous | Maryland News - WBAL Home

http://www.wbaltv.com/blob/view/-/12...esky--PDF-.pdf



I urge all of you to sign this, in hopes to not allow breed specific legislation.
Petition: The Governor of MD: Do not Discriminate Against Pit Bulls in Maryland | Change.org

Meanwhile, two idiots burn a pitbull and they are found not guilty...
Twins Found Not Guilty Of Burning Pit Bull | WBAL Home - WBAL Home

I'm gonna go back and read this whole thread... but it's not Maryland Legislation that says pit bulls are dangerous, it's the Maryland JUDICIARY and since Maryland is a Common Law state, it makes the ruling. If it were legislation, there would be a statute and it would be a statutory call.

[VenusDoom]

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/53a11.pdf

This is the actual case and opinion - if anyone wants to read the case.

I've also got an article that was in Friday's Daily Record that breaks down the case, which I can email if requested (it's too large to attach to this post, I tried about 3 times)

At this point, all it's stating is that owning a pit or pit mix means the owner carries a strict liability should the dog bite. Historically, a pit or pit mix (or any dog, for that matter) would have a "one free bite" before it would be put down. Under this ruling, that "free bite" is gone and the owner would be responsible for any damages. This becomes a bigger issue if a landlord rents to someone who owns a pit or pit mix, because the landlord would also be held to the same standards as the dog owner.

[Baja28 (Premo)]

WTF needed the state to say they're dangerous. All you have to do is read the news.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by VenusDoom

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/53a11.pdf

This is the actual case and opinion - if anyone wants to read the case.

I've also got an article that was in Friday's Daily Record that breaks down the case, which I can email if requested (it's too large to attach to this post, I tried about 3 times)

At this point, all it's stating is that owning a pit or pit mix means the owner carries a strict liability should the dog bite. Historically, a pit or pit mix (or any dog, for that matter) would have a "one free bite" before it would be put down. Under this ruling, that "free bite" is gone and the owner would be responsible for any damages. This becomes a bigger issue if a landlord rents to someone who owns a pit or pit mix, because the landlord would also be held to the same standards as the dog owner.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying....a retired judge says "all pitbulls are inherently dangerous" and that it doesn't matter about other dogs, no matter how dangerous, they will still go through the temperment test that is procedure, but not pitbulls. The bit itself is now "proof" that the dog is dangerous, opening the door for civil lawsuits to pitbull owners, and landlords.

Since you seem to have far more legal knowledge than I do, is it totally ok for a retired judge to make that ruling?

Is it also true that now pitbull (or dogs that look like pits) bite victims will have the strict liability resource to use in court, but any other dog bite victims have the "first-bite" rule to live with? Keep in mind, the strict liability comes into play based on a dogs looks because the term "pitbull" was never defined in the court, leaving a broad interpretation.

Also, this dog had escaped from it's pen before, attacked a child, and escaped again, attacking another. Wouldn't the "first bite rule" apply here wihtout the need to change, or make a new law? He'd be free from civil liability in the first case, but not the second, correct?

It's really a shame what happened to the boys, but it seems to me that the parents couldn't get any money from the idiot owner, so they went after the landlord, sparking this whole mess. It's also pretty sad that they are also using 15+ year old statistics, and down right lies to come up with a ruling.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by Baja28

WTF needed the state to say they're dangerous. All you have to do is read the news.

Yea, the news always is fair and balanced....

[VenusDoom]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying....a retired judge says "all pitbulls are inherently dangerous" and that it doesn't matter about other dogs, no matter how dangerous, they will still go through the temperment test that is procedure, but not pitbulls. The bit itself is now "proof" that the dog is dangerous, opening the door for civil lawsuits to pitbull owners, and landlords.

Since you seem to have far more legal knowledge than I do, is it totally ok for a retired judge to make that ruling?

Is it also true that now pitbull (or dogs that look like pits) bite victims will have the strict liability resource to use in court, but any other dog bite victims have the "first-bite" rule to live with? Keep in mind, the strict liability comes into play based on a dogs looks because the term "pitbull" was never defined in the court, leaving a broad interpretation.

Also, this dog had escaped from it's pen before, attacked a child, and escaped again, attacking another. Wouldn't the "first bite rule" apply here wihtout the need to change, or make a new law? He'd be free from civil liability in the first case, but not the second, correct?

It's really a shame what happened to the boys, but it seems to me that the parents couldn't get any money from the idiot owner, so they went after the landlord, sparking this whole mess. It's also pretty sad that they are also using 15+ year old statistics, and down right lies to come up with a ruling.

The Solesky case was sent up to the Court of Special Appeals. The retired judge was actually assigned specially to hear this case. Two retired judges, actually, were assigned. A total of 7 judges heard the case and the decision was rendered 4-3.

Technically, if the dog had bit once before and then bit again, there would be freedom from civil liability in the first bite but not the second. That being said, people recover all the time from first bites as long as a "propensity for viciousness" can be proven. That being said, many times a dog bites more than once and isn't put down, regardless of the breed.

In this case, there was no money to be gained from the owner of the dog and so the landlord was called in. Originally, the landlord wasn't held liable for the attack, and then it was appealed, and appealed again. There have been other cases where the landlord was held liable which set the precedent for landlord liability.

All this new ruling does it make it more dangerous to own a pit bull or a pit mix, or to rent to someone who owns a pit bull or a pit mix. If you've got a pit that has never bit anyone in their entire life and is the most mild mannered dog you've ever met, then you probably don't have anything to be afraid of. If, however, you own a pit that has shown a propensity for any sort of viciousness, then you want to think carefully about owning the dog because the penalties for a bite can be stiff. This is something you probably want to think carefully about because your homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance is most certainly likely to sky rocket due to this ruling. Landlords may also be more reluctant to rent to someone who has a pit or a pit mix.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by VenusDoom

The Solesky case was sent up to the Court of Special Appeals. The retired judge was actually assigned specially to hear this case. Two retired judges, actually, were assigned. A total of 7 judges heard the case and the decision was rendered 4-3.

Technically, if the dog had bit once before and then bit again, there would be freedom from civil liability in the first bite but not the second. That being said, people recover all the time from first bites as long as a "propensity for viciousness" can be proven. That being said, many times a dog bites more than once and isn't put down, regardless of the breed.

In this case, there was no money to be gained from the owner of the dog and so the landlord was called in. Originally, the landlord wasn't held liable for the attack, and then it was appealed, and appealed again. There have been other cases where the landlord was held liable which set the precedent for landlord liability.

All this new ruling does it make it more dangerous to own a pit bull or a pit mix, or to rent to someone who owns a pit bull or a pit mix. If you've got a pit that has never bit anyone in their entire life and is the most mild mannered dog you've ever met, then you probably don't have anything to be afraid of. If, however, you own a pit that has shown a propensity for any sort of viciousness, then you want to think carefully about owning the dog because the penalties for a bite can be stiff. This is something you probably want to think carefully about because your homeowner's insurance or renter's insurance is most certainly likely to sky rocket due to this ruling. Landlords may also be more reluctant to rent to someone who has a pit or a pit mix.

Ok, so we're on the same page. Thanks.

Is it safe to say that Md can use this ruling as a basis to change their liability laws?

[VenusDoom]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

Ok, so we're on the same page. Thanks.

Is it safe to say that Md can use this ruling as a basis to change their liability laws?

It's safe to say that Maryland already did on the very day the decision was rendered.

Dog bite laws are not legislative - that is to say, the House and Senate have not formed committees and wrote bills which must then be voted on to create a statute (or law).

Dog bite laws are common law - that is to say that, because a court says something about the dog bite, what the court says holds true until a different court says differently.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by VenusDoom

It's safe to say that Maryland already did on the very day the decision was rendered.

Dog bite laws are not legislative - that is to say, the House and Senate have not formed committees and wrote bills which must then be voted on to create a statute (or law).

Dog bite laws are common law - that is to say that, because a court says something about the dog bite, what the court says holds true until a different court says differently.

Ya learn something new everyday....

So, technically, what can be done to "overrule" this common law? (obviously, I don't know the correct terminology)

Thanks