Zeke sued over alleged dog attack

[Runwildboys]

I have -- I was bitten by one. Dogs are territorial by nature, especially males. It happens.

So did you run across a vicious bulldog, or one that was defending his property?

Either way, they aren't traditionally violent dogs, which is the only point I was making.

 

[Bullflop]

So did you run across a vicious bulldog, or one that was defending his property?

I was walking along a sidewalk next to the street. He left the yard to bite me on the leg. Fortunately, his owner was there to call him off. He wasn't even a big bulldog but had quite a bite anyway. My blue jeans kept it from being too serious, though -- mostly, just a scratch.

 

[cern]

Kinda hate to say it but I'm glad to hear that. If he's not going to control those dogs he deserves whatever he gets.

It's just common sense on the part of the insurance carriers. Why would they knowingly cover someone who owns an animal breed whose history shows a propensity for attacks on people. Can you imagine the magnitude of a suit over the mauling death of a small child. That's why they don't do it.

 

[dogberry]

Now back to me figuring out what to carry to stop three large dogs.

 

[cern]

I'm not going to try to explain something when I don't know the facts. Something more people should practice.

My response wasn't to say the bulldogs didn't attack her. My response was to say that, in my experience, bulldogs don't tend to be vicious, and therefore it would be understandable that someone who owned them wouldn't expect them to attack.

Dogs are pack animals. If one of the pack, in this case the rott, attacks someone, the other dogs are far more than likely to join the fight. It's just a dogs nature. Even if bulldogs aren't considered a dangerous.

 

[Runwildboys]

Dogs are pack animals. If one of the pack, in this case the rott, attacks someone, the other dogs are far more than likely to join the fight. It's just a dogs nature. Even if bulldogs aren't considered a dangerous.

I'm aware of that. I think I alluded to that in another post, though I may have started to, then gone in a different direction with my train of thought. Either way, I think it's understandable if the owner of a passive breed doesn't expect that to happen if it hasn't happened once already.

 

[aria]

I'm aware of that. I think I alluded to that in another post, though I may have started to, then gone in a different direction with my train of thought. Either way, I think it's understandable if the owner of a passive breed doesn't expect that to happen if it hasn't happened once already.

Agreed but let’s not forget about the Doberman. Even if it was just the Doberman than all of that stuff goes at the window and it sounds like the Doberman was involved.

 

[Cowboys22]

Don't you know what an opinion is? It's based upon what one thinks, not what he knows. There's certainly no guarantee that a full explanation will be forthcoming. Good luck with that and your imagination, in the meantime. It's always careless to set up an appointment and fail to make provisions in advance, especially when a serious threat is possible. In the meantime, you can spare me the guilt trip. It's just an opinion -- deal with it. This is a chat room, not a trial. A judgment can only be rendered in that setting.

Your last sentence was “He was carelessly negligent.” That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement that isn’t supported by the facts at hand because we don’t have any yet and that’s what I was responding to. You have no idea if he was negligent or not because you don’t know what happened. Zeke’s lawyer has stated that when the facts are made public, it will show he wasn’t negligent so we will see what the truth is then.

 

[Runwildboys]

Agreed but let’s not forget about the Doberman. Even if it was just the Doberman than all of that stuff goes at the window and it sounds like the Doberman was involved.

Rottweiler, I thought. But again, while there are certainly a lot of untrustworthy Rottweilers...and Dobermans (been attacked by both breeds myself) there are also dogs of those breeds that show no sign of being vicious until they suddenly attack.

I don't know the full story, and maybe we never will, but I'm not just going to assume Zeke knew the dogs might attack her, and knowingly allowed them to be in the yard with her, unsupervised.

 

[cern]

Now back to me figuring out what to carry to stop three large dogs.

Bear spray. It'll turn a grizzly. I know this for a fact.

 

[aria]

Rottweiler, I thought. But again, while there are certainly a lot of untrustworthy Rottweilers...and Dobermans (been attacked by both breeds myself) there are also dogs of those breeds that show no sign of being vicious until they suddenly attack.

I don't know the full story, and maybe we never will, but I'm not just going to assume Zeke knew the dogs might attack her, and knowingly allowed them to be in the yard with her, unsupervised.

Geez, that’s what I meant, I’m getting all screwed up with all this dog talk, thanks for keeping me in line. I agree with you, I mean to say Rottweiller in response to him having two bulldogs that are a breed not known to be violent which I also agree with. I would take extra precautions if I had a more vicious dog breed (which I never would).

Either way, if she showed up unannounced or when she wasn’t supposed to I would think zeke shouldn't be liable, other way around and he kept the dogs outside whether they never had any problems or not than that’s on him.

 

[dogberry]

Bear spray. It'll turn a grizzly. I know this for a fact.

Thank you, my wife agrees with your advice. She thinks my first strategy of getting a bear bell might not work with dogs.

It’ll take more than a village to keep me from being a Darwin Award winner.

 

[erod]

That is a problem because 90 % of dog owners dont train their dog for anything.

Pitbulls properly trained and treated, are not 100 % safe, just more safe than the others.
They are geared to attack, and while they may like you and not hurt you, they could be triggered to attack someone else.

There are more pitbull attacks on people than probably any other animal. Rots are 2nd .
Many attacks result in deaths, and other severe damage like a face torn off etc.

So is it smart to let just anyone own one of these types of dogs?? lol I dont think so , yet govts do nothing in regard to these types of dog
or who can own them.
If your pro pitbull, that would change if you or someone u care about is ever attacked by one.

People like having powerful animals as pets, some even have tigers lol , but it is dangerous, and most people that own pitbulls
are not capable of keeping them from hurting someone.

It sounds to me like elliots dogs are totally untrained, and are prone to violence, yet if these dogs were put down, he could just get some
more dogs, and create same situation again.

The people I knew properly trained theirs.

It snapped and almost killed a kid.

They are wild animals.

 

[TheKey]

First time it happened I was shocked tbh.
Dude could have texted me but he is clearly not afraid of dogs.

He was just ignoring her as she laid in the shade.

I seldom let her outside without watching her but occasionally will have major issues I am working and can't get away from the pc for more than a few minutes so she has to go out by herself for a bit.

She is a big sleep in the bed baby but I have no doubt in the right situation could be dangerous.
I wrestle and play rough with her regularly and she nips me but has never broken skin.
My daughters would never play with her like that though.

To be fair I have a German Shepherd and, although he has never shown any aggressiveness at all, I would not let strangers interact with him unless I was present. These dogs were bred over generations for a reason, and it wasn't to keep us warm in bed.

 

[kskboys]

The people I knew properly trained theirs.

It snapped and almost killed a kid.

They are wild animals.

And that's not the first story I've heard from someone I knew. Years ago I had a friend who was very proud of his pits. Very friendly guys, I even messed w/ them several times myself. Then they killed his young daughter. Sad, sad stuff.

 

[Bullflop]

Your last sentence was “He was carelessly negligent.” That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement that isn’t supported by the facts at hand because we don’t have any yet and that’s what I was responding to. You have no idea if he was negligent or not because you don’t know what happened. Zeke’s lawyer has stated that when the facts are made public, it will show he wasn’t negligent so we will see what the truth is then.

The entire post was "just my opinion." In fact, those were first three words of my original post. You're just projecting your opinion into what mine was. Again, I stated my opinion, not what I knew to be factual. I just think he was negligent -- that's it.

If something comes out to the contrary, I'll have no problem with it and you shouldn't either. You seriously need to chill out and abandon the guilt trip you're so intent upon conveying. I think he was negligent and that's all I'm saying as an opinion.

You don't know if he's innocent any more than I know he's guilty. Of course Zeke's lawyer will claim he's innocent -- that's his job, whether it's true or not. Believe whatever you want, if that's what you think. I have a right to my opinion, too.

 

[Aviano90]

The entire post was "just my opinion." In fact, those were first three words of my original post. You're just projecting your opinion into what mine was. Again, I stated my opinion, not what I knew to be factual. I just think he was negligent -- that's it.

If something comes out to the contrary, I'll have no problem with it and you shouldn't either. You seriously need to chill out and abandon the guilt trip you're so intent upon conveying. I think he was negligent and that's all I'm saying as an opinion.

You don't know if he's innocent any more than I know he's guilty. Of course Zeke's lawyer will claim he's innocent -- that's his job, whether it's true or not. Believe whatever you want, if that's what you think. I have a right to my opinion, too.

Just curious, why not wait until you know the facts prior to forming an opinion?

 

[Buzzbait]

Your last sentence was “He was carelessly negligent.” That’s not an opinion, it’s a statement that isn’t supported by the facts at hand because we don’t have any yet and that’s what I was responding to. You have no idea if he was negligent or not because you don’t know what happened.
Zeke’s lawyer has stated that when the facts are made public, it will show he wasn’t negligent so we will see what the truth is then.

Perhaps, but if Zeke was in fact careless with the dogs, his lawyer would never admit it. He's getting paid to protect Zeke's bank account regardless of the truth.

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

Highly unlikely.

How is that “highly unlikely”? Homeowners insurance covers dog bites, just google it. Secondly must basic homeowners cover up to a $300k liability which I would imagine someone with Zeke’s worth would carry more. It has been stated that the person is only suing for $200k.

 

[Runwildboys]

How is that “highly unlikely”? Homeowners insurance covers dog bites, just google it. Secondly must basic homeowners cover up to a $300k liability which I would imagine someone with Zeke’s worth would carry more. It has been stated that the person is only suing for $200k.

There are breeds of dogs for which many, if not most insurance companies will deny coverage, at least to the average homeowner. As I stated earlier, I'm sure they have a price for which they'll change that policy, but most people would probably just neglect to mention that they have a "dangerous" breed.