Photo of the Day, November 6, 2009: Newburyport Night 1
Heroic MBTA Operator and Inspector Honored: Saved Woman's Life
Bostonians of the Week: Cherice Lewis, North Station Bystanders
Week Around the Ists, November 1–7
Harvard FML: Because Going to Harvard Is Just That Hard
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.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Dog-people don't seem to understand just how terrifying their pets can be to the rest of us. It's good to know that there are strong penalties available if/when the dog does damage, but it would be even nicer to see leash laws, noise laws and scooping laws enforced. A woman sicced her dog on me this past weekend in Radcliffe Yard, and there was nothing I could do except freeze in terror.
Charley: i'm sure that you weren't teasing or tormenting the animal because your generic fear of dogs would prompt you to alter your route and stay as far away from the vicious canine, er, dachshund as possible. But I must ask: what the hell were you doing (attempting to take a picture of the dog w/out the owner's consent?) that drove that poor woman to risk a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution and unleash her attack dog, er, dachshund on you?? ;-)
p.s. "You may use some html tags for style." (why is the strike tag disabled?)
I was sitting on a bench reading a book.
She didn't really "Sic" the dog on me per se, but she unleashed a hyperactive monster in an area where I had a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet, and the beast ran over to me in a menacing manner. There were "dogs must be leashed per cambridge leash laws" signs posted all over the place.