MD Legislation now says pitbulls are "dangerous"

pixiegirl

Cleopatra Jones
And this (amoungst a few other things) is why MD can kiss my tax dollars goodbye. :geek: It's beyond retarded. I'm not against strong laws for all dog owners but to single out a breed that you can't even really single out based on looks is beyond stupid.

I tried to look up dog bite statistics for Hawaii today without much success. Pits are the "unofficial" state dog. With limited stock there is surely some inbreeding going on. I'm shocked that there's anyone left there... That was :sarcasm: for those of you that are too slow... If pits were truly the ungodly beasts that everyone thinks they are wouldn't there be so many maulings in such a small place that it would have caught national attention forever ago?

Quite frankly I'm tired of arguing with misinformed idiots on the subject and I don't care to live in a state that was ridiculously messed up before this. There's one way to be heard (or not, I really don't care at this point) and that's to tax my tax $$$ over to VA. :buddies:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Also,

In accordance with the well-settled common law standard of strict liability, the
breed of the dog, standing alone, has never been considered a sufficient substitute for proof that a particular dog was dangerous or had a violent nature. (See McDonald v.Burgess) Specifically, in McDonald, we held that the mere fact that the dog in question belonged to a specific breed, which “can and often does behave in a very vicious manner,” was insufficient to hold the owner legally responsible for his German shepherd attacking another person. In that case, “[t]here [wa]s nothing in the record to demonstrate that
the particular dog alleged to have caused the injury . . . was of a violent or oppressive nature” and that the defendant had the requisite scienter. Id. Thus, in order to hold the owner or keeper of a dog strictly liable, there must be a showing that the particular dog, in that case German shepherd, was of a violent nature and that the owner or keeper of the dog knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the dog’s inclination or propensity.
Furthermore, until today, this Court has never announced a theory of strict liability predicated upon the alleged knowledge of the owner, keeper, or landlord of the premises, based upon assumptions about a particular breed of an animal, where a dog of that breed caused an injury to another human being. Ordinarily, the owner, keeper, or landlord of the premises, would be strictly liable in a dog bite case where the responsible party was in a position to anticipate the harm; primarily, because he or she had sufficient knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities or inclination and would thereby be in a position to take corrective
action. (See Bachman v. Clark)
Although this Court has authority to alter the common law, we have been reluctant to do so because of the principle of stare decisis, which we have confirmed “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” (DRD Pool Serv., Inc. v. Freed) (quoting Livesay v. Balt. Cnty). We have changed or modified the common law when the prior decision was “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles (State v. Adams)
So, basically, nothing like this has been done before, because dangerous dogs should be based on their behavior, and whether or not the owner knew. Until now, where they can lump an entire breed into one catagory. Obviously, that last quote did not stand true.

BTW, all quotes above are from Judge Greene's dissenting opinion. (To which judges Harrell and Barbera agree)
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/53a11.pdf
 
Last edited:

VenusDoom

Rock Star
Also,







So, basically, nothing like this has been done before, because dangerous dogs should be based on their behavior, and whether or not the owner knew. Until now, where they can lump an entire breed into one catagory. Obviously, that last quote did not stand true.

BTW, all quotes above are from Judge Greene's dissenting opinion. (To which judges Harrell and Barbera agree)
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/53a11.pdf
Yes... the dissenting opinion... do you know what that is? It's simply the judges who didn't like the popular opinion writing their own opinion as to why they voted like they did. In the grand scheme of things, it means jack.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Yes... the dissenting opinion... do you know what that is? It's simply the judges who didn't like the popular opinion writing their own opinion as to why they voted like they did. In the grand scheme of things, it means jack.
I know what it is, but it included pretty good info IMO.

What I was trying to point out, is that in other, previous cases, they used the dog's behavior as a judge to whether it was dangerous, and that they only changed common law when "when the prior decision was “clearly wrong and contrary to established principles."

I see neither one of those in this ruling.
 

VenusDoom

Rock Star
I don't trust people that don't like dogs. :eyebrow:
Yeah really! Who doesn't like dogs?
:lol: I tolerate dogs, I might even pet them or allow them to lay next to me, but in general dogs are needy and I don't like things that are needy. I get rid of men for the same reason. I prefer cats, because they keep themselves clean (for the most part), aren't always up in your face, and don't need to be let out so they can do their business. If a cat wants to come say hello, it says hello, then it moves along to its next destination. Dogs are always trying to be up in your space, and most of the time they're pretty adamant about being there... that and I don't like puppy kisses.
 

ICit

Jam out with ur clam out
:lol: I tolerate dogs, I might even pet them or allow them to lay next to me, but in general dogs are needy and I don't like things that are needy. I get rid of men for the same reason. I prefer cats, because they keep themselves clean (for the most part), aren't always up in your face, and don't need to be let out so they can do their business. If a cat wants to come say hello, it says hello, then it moves along to its next destination. Dogs are always trying to be up in your space, and most of the time they're pretty adamant about being there... that and I don't like puppy kisses.
:coffee:

I dislike kids because they are needy... I would rather let my dog outside than to wipe a kids arse! my dogs only eat 2x a day ...IF lucky :killingme
/... dont have to cook for them, just dump food in bowl.

dont pay for sitters, daycare... and they dont cry over stupid things or because you told the little brat they couldnt have something.

:jerry:

and I think its BS to rule on one breed of dog... :yay:
 

VenusDoom

Rock Star
:coffee:

I dislike kids because they are needy... I would rather let my dog outside than to wipe a kids arse! my dogs only eat 2x a day ...IF lucky :killingme
/... dont have to cook for them, just dump food in bowl.

dont pay for sitters, daycare... and they dont cry over stupid things or because you told the little brat they couldnt have something.

:jerry:

and I think its BS to rule on one breed of dog... :yay:
I'm not for or against the ruling. I'm impartial because it doesn't apply to me. I'm just explaining it.
 

Nickel

curiouser and curiouser
:lol: I tolerate dogs, I might even pet them or allow them to lay next to me, but in general dogs are needy and I don't like things that are needy. I get rid of men for the same reason. I prefer cats, because they keep themselves clean (for the most part), aren't always up in your face, and don't need to be let out so they can do their business. If a cat wants to come say hello, it says hello, then it moves along to its next destination. Dogs are always trying to be up in your space, and most of the time they're pretty adamant about being there... that and I don't like puppy kisses.
My cat is more of a pain in the ass than my 90 lb dog. :lol:
 

VenusDoom

Rock Star
My cat is more of a pain in the ass than my 90 lb dog. :lol:
Louie Bear is pretty needy too, I've got to admit... but I do adore his mug. I had a dog once, loved her to death. She developed a cancerous brain tumor and had to be put down my first year of college.
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
:lol: I tolerate dogs, I might even pet them or allow them to lay next to me, but in general dogs are needy and I don't like things that are needy. I get rid of men for the same reason. I prefer cats, because they keep themselves clean (for the most part), aren't always up in your face, and don't need to be let out so they can do their business. If a cat wants to come say hello, it says hello, then it moves along to its next destination. Dogs are always trying to be up in your space, and most of the time they're pretty adamant about being there... that and I don't like puppy kisses.
I'm right there with you, for the most part. Every once in a while, a dog comes along and steals my heart. My gf's greyhound, Basil, is one of those dogs. I also loved Gilly (punka' head), my vets golden retriever. This was many years ago, and Gilly is long gone, but she was well loved. I don't dislike dogs, but I do find them ill mannered, and needy as well.
 

Hank

my war
:lol: I tolerate dogs, I might even pet them or allow them to lay next to me, but in general dogs are needy and I don't like things that are needy. I get rid of men for the same reason. I prefer cats, because they keep themselves clean (for the most part), aren't always up in your face, and don't need to be let out so they can do their business. If a cat wants to come say hello, it says hello, then it moves along to its next destination. Dogs are always trying to be up in your space, and most of the time they're pretty adamant about being there... that and I don't like puppy kisses.
I would hump you like a Cocker Spaniel in heat!!!
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Strict liability laws placed on landlords that rent to tenants with pit bulls and pit bull mixes could cost the state of Maryland as much as $30,190,946 in state and local tax revenues.
http://www.bestfriends.org/pdfs/MarylandImpactTraceyvSolesky5-18- 2012second.pdf
 
Top