Dangerous Dogs and Massachusetts Law

Reading in the Herald yesterday about the second random dog attack in Brockton in a week, Bostonist came across this sentence: "Ellis [the dog owner], who state law holds liable for the attack provided Talis [the victim] was not trespassing or abusing Deuce [the dog], had not been cited as of yesterday." This made us wonder: What are the laws concerning dog bites here in the Commonwealth?

The answer is delightfully simple: The owner of a dog is responsible for damages caused by that dog to people or property, and if a dog bites a person, it doesn't matter what precautions the owner took, unless the person was "teasing, tormenting, or abusing" the dog, or trespassing. People who are "keepers" of a dog owned by someone else also can't sue the owner for damages. That means veterinarians and folks who live with, walk, and feed a dog although it was purchased by someone else. And children under seven who are attacked by dogs are presumed not to be teasing, tormenting, abusing, or trespassing. Also, under a 1974 Appeals Court decision, a properly trained attack dog can be considered a dangerous weapon, and its owner can be charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in the right circumstances. Most garden-variety citations for unruly or unleashed dogs, though, are based in the law of a particular city or town.

All of this should be very reassuring to people who have small children and live in neighborhoods with lots of big dogs. Somehow, though, when Bostonist and Mrs. Bostonist were walking home from dinner a couple weeks ago and the boxer from 29 Marion Street was loose and following us down the street while barking and growling, the availability of civil damages and possible criminal penalties didn't help very much. Also, we're terribly disappointed in the Herald, which usually impresses us with animal-related puns, for failing to offer any good wordplay in a story about a dog named Deuce.

Photo: A dangerous Dogg.