From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:20:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.165741.21955@adobe.com> pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.022056.643@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>>The kids are gonna have to learn. The only thing dog owners need to do
>>is keep their dogs from going after the kids. But if the dog is 
>>restrained, that's the dog owners limit of liability. Do you expect
>>cars to stop for kids that dart out into the street?  Don't let your
>>kids play on MY street. . . . . 

Actually, the limit of liability isn't the restraint on the dog.  You
are talking legalities now.  I just heard a judge talking about this the
other day.  In California (I don't know about other states, but I sus[ect
the laws are similar), an owner is responsible for any bites his dog
inflicted, unless the dog was provoked (or some other similar wording).  In
other words, even if your dog is restrained on a leash and remains on a leash,
and he without warning or provocation bites a person, YOU as the dog's
owner are responsible for any damages.

However, when it comes to children, the rules change just slightly.  If
you are sitting ona  bench with a leashed dog, and a child jumps on it
causing it to bite the child, a judge would have to determine of the child
knew, or could have known, the consequences of his jumping--in other words,
is the child old enough or worldly enough to realize that jumping on a dog
could cause him to bite?  If he did, then the owner is not at fault.  If
he could not realize that, then who is at fault?  I don't know that one,
as I didn't ask the judge that.  (I will, however, ask my neighbor that one
--he was just elected judge, or ran for the position)

When it comes to cars....if they are in a posision to stop (they see the child
and aren't going too fast) and they don't stop, then they are at fault.
If they are going too fast to stop they are at fault.  If they don't see
the child and there is reason to believe it was nearly impossible to see it
(*like it's dark and unlit) then I don't think they are at fault.  If it
is clear daylight and they didn't see the child, then they are at fault as
they are considereed negligent because they didn't see.

Gee.  I syould be a lawyer.
>
>Interesting analogy. If a child runs out into the street and the driver
>had a chance to stop and doesn't, what do you suppose the consequences
>will be? When it comes to children, I think the doctrine of fault lying
>with the person who had the last clear chance to prevent the accident
>applies. (not exclusive fault, there will be enough liability for
>everyone, but society seems in general to feel that a parent's loss of
>a child is suffering enough.)

See above.  It's not so simple.

>
>There was a story of a woman on TV recently. She lost her temper with
>her 3 year old son and after beating him with a curtain rod, walked
>to the other side of the room and threw the curtain rod at him with
>such force that it penetrated his eye and into his brain. He died
>a few hours later. She was found guilty but then the verdict was
>overturned on appeal so she just walked.
>

I think I should point out that that happend over 30 years ago when
the child abuse laws were quite different.  If tried now, she would
certainly be convicted and it would stand.

I believe the show was "Scared Silent", narrated by Oprah, or was it
60 minutes????

I should also point out that the woman blames herself for what happened.

Jennifer
Newsgroups: ba.general,misc.kids