Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
16 cycles wrote:so how does one presently seek compensation from being mauled by a 'dangerous dog'?
No compensation
Horse bites off boy's arm
By Rickie Ramdass rickie.ramdass@trinidadexpress.com
Story Created: Jun 22, 2011 at 11:53 PM ECT
Story Updated: Jun 22, 2011 at 11:53 PM ECT
HIGH COURT Judge Andre des Vignes, yesterday ruled that there was insufficient evidence proving negligence on the part of the owner of a horse that bit off the arm of nine-year-old David Sinanan in 2004, and therefore no compensation could be awarded to the boy.
Sinanan, now 15, through his mother Dilmatie Sinanan had sued Maniram "Bobby" Maharaj and his farm, High Clear Stud Farm, as being liable to payment.
......................
Des Vignes stated in the judgment that the issues that had arisen for determination in the matter was whether Maharaj, as owner of the horse named "Java" was "liable under the common law of scienter (intentionally) for the injuries sustained" by Sinanan, whether Maharaj was liable in negligence for the injuries sustained by the boy or "whether the claimants had established their entitlement to damages".
Sinanan had his left hand bitten off by "Java" on February 20, 2004, at the farm located at William Trace, Enterprise, Chaguanas which was owned by Maharaj. Doctors had to amputate from under the elbow because of the extent of the injury.
..........................
Des Vignes said, "In the particulars of negligence, the claimants had alleged that the defendant failed to take adequate precautions 'knowing that Java was unpredictable and had bitten persons before and was likely to attack persons coming close to him'. They also alleged that it was breeding season for horses and that Java was likely to behave in an aggressive manner and be a danger to members of the public visiting the farm".
......................
He added that "it is an unfortunate incident. It was a decision I agonised in making but I cannot allow sympathy to interfere with the rule of law".
kaylex wrote:12. Similarly, people caught teasing dogs could be fined too.. because children have a funny way of teasing your dog.. and the funny thing is... is not the teaser who gets bite you know.. is some unfortunate other child going their merry way gets the shitty end of the stick
.
kaylex wrote:I keep saying the problem is not aggressive dogs but irresponsible owners.
kaylex wrote:I am not going to get into any argument with any of the critics..
But I am an owner...
I am suggesting some alternatives to banning Pit-bulls and it could be applied
1. Owners pay a fee to get a permit to have these dogs.. renewable every 5-7 years.
2. Get your property assessed by some entity similar to the (ASPCA) for a fee of course..
with minimum requirements of well fortified concrete fence.. no wire fence...
3. Kennels with minimum safety standards Ie size,locking devices, carrying cages etc.
4. When walkin dogs ensure to have permits on you.
5. Walk with a muzzle also at all times.
6. Depending on size of yard or area where dogs are housed you have a minimum amount of dogs.. as they are high energy and you cant have 6-7 of them in a 5000 sq ft parcel of land with house.
7. Owners of dogs must own a property and not be rental.
8. No pets in buildings or premises shared by non-family members.. inclusive of tenants.
9. Any criminal or ex-convicts cannot be granted license for owning one until granted as a non liability by the court of CJS as a dog can be considered a weapon.
10. Must apply for permit to breed dogs also.
and a few more I cant think about now...
11. I personally dont mind paying a 500 $ insurance for a dog per year also..
12. Similarly, people caught teasing dogs could be fined too.. because children have a funny way of teasing your dog.. and the funny thing is... is not the teaser who gets bite you know.. is some unfortunate other child going their merry way gets the shitty end of the stick
I keep saying the problem is not aggressive dogs but irresponsible owners.
16 cycles wrote:Why were specific breeds of dogs targeted in the legislation?
Pretender wrote:
Specific breeds were targeted because those who drafted the legislation were uninformed, uneducated about the real issue and too lazy to do their own research so they copied an outdated piece of legislation from another country.
MG Man wrote:read what I said before
how is his plan going to stop slackers abandoning dogs or putting them to sleep????????
sheesh
I give up
*goes out to play with my pothound and weird shep/rot/dob mix girls*
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: rollingstock and 109 guests