Pitbull dogs

what do your regulations say about dog ownership in the HOA? enforce your rules.

I will always dislike attempting to legislate by breed. We should legislate by ACTIONS. Does it really matter if the dog that is chasing me is a Pit Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, a Great Dane, a bulldog, a collie, an Aussie shephard, or a chow? Does it really matter what the DNA is of the dog?

How about a general rule that owners will be responsible for the actions of their pets (dogs, cats, hawks, gerbils, sharks, etc.), period. If your regulations require leashes, then ALL dogs must be on leashes...even the little toy dogs people carry in a purse.

If you don't have any regs about dogs, then all you can do is contact the local authorities.

Buddy

Are you implying the bit bull that killed the other dog was in your HOA or the BOD just knows of such and incident elsewhere?

We had several incidents of alligators eating dogs in my former HOA. One person petitioned the BOD to have all alligators in our HOA killed.

The Association should not overstep their authority. Loose animals and/or attacks should be addressed by animal control and/or the police, not the Association.

If the Board desires, place an article in the newsletter that simply states there have been reports of animals not on leashes within the community. Remind the membership of the Association leash policy (if there is one) and state that members should contact animal control (provide the number) if they see an animal loose or if they feel threatened by any animal.

Buddy,

I am disappointed with the responses from the others above. Regardless of whose job it may be to do something, the fact remains that you have a vicious dog being walked daily through your neighborhood by a person whose ability to control the dog is marginal. A dog that will kill other dogs will just as easily kill a small child if given the chance. The dog's owners are either unaware of the danger or just do not care.

Your first step should be to forget about rules and fairness and all the other nice guy stuff. You need to get that dog out of your neighborhood ASAP. Yesterday would not have been too soon.

If that dog was in my neighborhood I would shoot it without remorse because it is just a matter of time before it kills again. Keep in mind that this comes from a guy who does not hunt and has never deliberately killed an animal. I would rather explain to a jury that I killed a vicious dog than explain to a jury that I knew there was a vicious dog and did nothing to prevent little Susie from getting mauled.

I have read that many insurers will not write homeowner policies if they have certain breeds of dogs. You may want to be certain that your HOA’s liability policy does not have such an exclusion.

Larry, i agree with what you say, except I substitute the word Owner everywhere you use the word dog.
It's the alpha in the pack who is in the wrong, and who should be punished.

At this point, you really don't know of the dog is vicious. Dogs in the same household may be fighting over territory or the larger dog may have been too rough in play. Just the fact that the other smaller dog was killed doesn't mean the pitbull can be classified as vicious. For instance, if the smaller dog was a chihuahua and the head was hit or pressure was applied to a molera (place where the skull did not fuse) this might cause death, but a similar encounter between the pitbull and another smaller dog might not have had the same results.

The pitbull does not currently fit any definition that I've heard for a vicious dog or even a dangerous dog. You need to look at the definitions for your state. I know how these are defined in California.

In addition, you might see if your HOA insurance has any clauses related to dogs and dog breeds. Some insurance have clauses regarding certain breeds which can increase insurance.

There is nothing brazen about walking the dog during the day. That's just your opinion and very biased. The board should be careful about showing bias that at this point is unfounded.

You write that the owner has no control, but you do not mention if the dog has shown aggressive reactions or actions toward people or other dogs while being walked. This can be anything from barking (many owners do not train their dogs NOT to bark), lunging, growling or snarling.

So, if the board decides that my dog is dangerous because she growls, she is gone. But Bob's dog can bite someone, and stay, if the board says "yeah, but Bob's dog is cute, not dangerous". Good, glad to know that we aren't giving unfettered power to any group of people with no limits.

Secondly, that's a pretty broad second group of people too: ANY governmental agency. So, if the parks and recreation department of the city of Podunk, Illinois decides that cats are dangerous because they spread disease, your HOA in Wherever Oregon now has to ban cats.

And lastly.. I love the breed part.

So, legally, I cannot have a Great Dane or Husky, but I could have a Husky Mix. Or an Akita. Or a Belgian Shepherd. Or a Dogo Argentino. Or a pit bull mix.

Because last I checked, Pit bull Mix is not a breed.

Here's a ruling from a MD court opinion that specifies "all pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous." (don't kill the messenger, I'm just pointing it out)

Here is a link to the opinion:

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

Here is a link to the story:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=70&sid=2849700

Although Tim's court ruling is actually a pretty well thought out piece of jurisprudence, I have to point out that the very same courts have also ruled some pretty stupid things too..

So, in fairness, courts are not always the smartest of us either.

in 2011, courts have ruled:

Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son.

Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage. Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open. Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut. Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHT days and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental anguish. Amazingly, the court said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish.

Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbor's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard. Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun.

Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, scores because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

Kara Walton, of Claymont, Delaware, sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000 and dental expenses.

Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven onto the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich. Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her — are you sitting down? — $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed its manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home

Tim,

Thank you for posting the link to the Maryland opinion.

The court's conclusion should be required reading for Buddy and his buddies on the board of his HOA. Here it is:

"We [The Court of Appeals of Maryland] hold that upon a plaintiff’s sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull mix, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull’s presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has the right and/or opportunity to prohibit such dogs on leased premises as in this case) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull mix, that person is strictly liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner’s or lessor’s premises. This holding is prospective and applies to this case and causes of action accruing after the date of the filing of this opinion [April 26, 2012]."

This means that if a person is bitten by a pit bull, the owner and every other person who the right to control the dog's presence is liable. The way I read it is that if the HOA has the power to demand removal of the pit bull and fails to do so, they can be held liable if the dog attacks someone.

The court's decision also removed the requirement to prove that the dog is known to be dangerous. The fact that it is a pit bull or pit bull mix is proof enough that it is dangerous.

Buddy, since this decision is less than a month old, I would suggest that your HOA's attorney contact your local animal control administrator and make them aware of the court's decision. As of April 12, all pit bulls in Maryland are, by declaration of the Court of Appeals, inherently dangerous. The cop-out that it only killed another dog in the same home is no longer viable.

LarryB13,
This is very good information - thank you very much.

This is the court of appeals. I wonder if the case will be challenged.

The person who pointed out that this ruling was new is right. Only a lawyer can tell you how to proceed.

You'd have to check your CC&R. Often if you amend, you'd be required to grandfather in someone who had such a dog prior to the amendment.

In California, the infamous 2001 dog attack case did not involve a pitbull. It involved a presa Canario.

The American Pitbull Terrier is not an AKC recognized breed, but it is recognized by the UKC. One of the articles regarding this recent decision pointed out that what might look like a pitbull might not be a pitbull so this becomes problematic unless you're willing to institute DNA testing.

Check out the Wikipedia entry on Breed-specific legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation

In fact, they are all complete fabrications entirely untrue. Please check out Legal myths: Hardly the whole truth.