A home owner is not transient like a renter is. If a home owner's dog bites me I know where to find him and what to sue him for. Not so with a renter.

Sean,

It is not the responsibility of the landlord to cover his tenants negligence or irresponsibility. This law came about, because someone that was tunnel-minded pushed the courts to discriminate against pit bulls, basically looking for deeper pockets. This affected anyone that rented and owned a pit bull and the dogs themselves. People were being forced to move out or give up their pit bulls, which the vast majority were good. That is all that changed. If you were mauled by a German shepherd, lab, chow, Rottweiler or any other breed, the law remains the same. All it did was put the law back to the way it was, removing pit bull discrimination. Should the landlord be liable if their tenants kids harm you or destroy your property? Same thing

Clay, now you make my point. I am lucky my son was mauled by a Pit Bull. many dog could do the same injury and I would have had no shot. The court did not single Pit bulls out it said it can't go beyond them because they did not have a any dog case but a pit bull case. The court said make it all dogs the legislature is trying to find a way to make it as it was before. You are focused that that is better then expanding the law to everybody. You are what makes people realize how pit bull lovers are not dog lovers they are just selfish hateful people who enjoy the world being against them because of their dogs so they do not have to realize it is because of them. My case is over. I won. I am trying to tell people the truth for their sake not mine.

Solesky, Sounds like pit bull owners are not the only selfish hateful people

Clay,

All dog owners should have to carry insurance and all landlords should be held reponsible for who they rent to. Have a drive through the city and see the havoc irresponsible landlords and renters can have on a place.

@Clay Hund: It is the responsibility of landlords to provide tenants a safe place in which to live and to protect tenants and the public from dangerous conditions on the landlord's property. Pit bulls are dangerous, therefore, if a landlord allows tenants to have pit bulls on his property, he is placing other tenants and lawful invitees to the propery in danger. Most renters do not even have tenant homeowners insurance to pay for their home furnishings in case of theft or other loss, do you really think they are going to insure their pit bulls? I realize from having encountered you on other sites that you aren't very bright, but even you should be able to comprehend this. If landlords aren't held responsible for dangerous dogs on their property, then why hold them responsible for improperly-fenced swimming pools, loose steps, or any other dangerous condition?

Then the only other solution is that all owners of dogs must carry insurance just like auto insurance and a landlord must check to make sure the renter has insurance. If the renter does not then the landlord should be held liable.

Not rational. The owner of the dog is responsible whether they're insured or not. Just like the parent of a kid is respnsible if they damage my car with a baseball, whether they have insurance or not. It has nothing to do with the landlord.

franking, you are kidding, right? If a deadbeat renter's dog bites me, do you really think the deadbeat renter is all the sudden going to become a responsible citizen?

Sean, you really give landlords a lot of power. Landlords don't want "deadbeats" even more than you don't want to live next to one. If a landlord does a background check for criminal activity, ensures that they did not have problems paying their rent in the past, and has a no-pet rental agreement, does that mean the renter won't be a deadbeat? I'd love to hear your test to detect deadbeats because I am a landlord and I do background checks, talk to past landlords, and have a no-pet policy, but I still have a deadbeat renter who is not paying her rent, has destroyed my home, has had a dog (or some animal) chew up doors and walls, and, while I've lost all of my savings and now face foreclosure on the rental property, she gets a free ride and I still wait for the courts to say that I'm allowed to have my home back (what's left of it). The real problem is not the landlords, or the pitbulls, or even the laws themselves. The real problem is that the laws that are in place are either not enforced, or at least not in a timely manner. Landlords can't just throw someone out, they have to go through a lengthy and expensive legal process while the deadbeats get free rides. By the way, I am not a deadbeat either. I have a good job, pay my bills, graduated from college, live in a nice neighborhood, and have children as well as a family pitbull. Focus on those who are doing wrong rather than the landlords or a specific breed of dog.

Leo, I am not saying landlords can detect a deadbeat renter before they move in. I am saying a landlord should be held responsible if the renter has a dog that bites people. That responsibility may be just making sure any renter has dog insurance. It's not that hard.

Sean, do you believe in Pegasus and unicorns, too? Landlords have a hard time legally evicting people for not paying their rent. They certainly can't be responsible for making them buy insurance from a third party.

And I fail to see why you would single out dogs. Cats stink, can spray and do damage, kill wildlife, crap in kids' sandboxes and a cat bite is a lot more likely to get infected.

But the last thing we need is more big brother.

I own rental property and I do not allow pets. If all landlords instituted a strict "no pet" policy, that would solve the problem! If people can’t afford their own home with a fenced yard, then they don’t need a dog, particularly not a large, vicious animal such as a pit bull! It is inhumane to keep a large, energetic animal in a small house or apartment. If all you dog freaks were really concerned about animal welfare, you would oppose any landlord allowing dogs in apartments.

If a teenage renter is in the landlord's car and gets in an accident, yes, the landlord would be held responsible for damages. If the renters are running a crack house and the landlord does not evict them, I do believe Baltimore City can force the renters out.

Now, if the landlord doesn't know the renter has the dog, that's another story. That's why he would have to state clearly in the lease either the renter must have dog insurance if pets allowed or no pets.

Frankly, I don't give a hoot how landlords deal with the pet issue. What makes life in Baltimore City unbearable for many is the public nuisance created by bad renters and many bad renters are bad dog owners.

If the teen were driving anyone elses car, the owner of the car would be liable. That has nothing to do with them being the landlord.

Yes, franking, except CAW21227 used the landlord in her example. So, in her example, yes, the landlord would be held liable if the teenage renter was involved in an accident while driving the landlord's car.

CAW21227
First, if you haven't noticed there is a difference between a teen human being and a dog. Really?

Secondly, I don't have to rent, but I choose to simply because it's just not possible for me anymore to maintain a home with all the responsibilites inherent. I've been there, done that already. Renting today is much more expensive than it used to be, just look at the market rents now. Every apartment complex that I looked into required renter's insurance, and thost that allow pets had strict guidelines. Currrently there are no size limitations only breed specific and yet there are renters who don't disclose their pet upon renting as there is a nice deposit and additional rent every month, and those that move in and obtain a restricted breed shortly after they move in. In 6 months I've already turned it 8 animals that shouldn't be here. When I rented here I had an expectation of being able to walk freely without threat of being mauled to death. And when I'm here abiding by the rules I am entitled to that protection, period.

"When I rented here I had an expectation of being able to walk freely without threat of being mauled to death."

So, because someone owns a specific breed, you feel there is now a threat of being mauled to death? What proof do you have that your chances of being mauled to death have increased? Why should a person be banned from owning their chosen breed because ~you~ have an arbitrary and/or emotional opinion regarding said breed?

The idea behind holding the landlord responsible was so landlords would not rent to deadbeats. In case you haven't been through some of our rougher areas, deadbeat renters are a major problem.

@ Sean Tully landlords will rent to deadbeats with or without strict liability. Holding the landlord strictly liable for the tenant's dog is not going to change the deadbeat problem.

'Deadbeats are a major problem', sure but that's irrelevant to whether *landlords* should be held specially responsible for them. Why not have the lawyers able to sure Rent-a-Center if someone who rents their furniture there does something which harms somebody else?

The question isn't whether there are 'deadbeats' but the ridiculousness of making landlords into their nannies with some special responsibility for overseeing their lives. MD seems to have realized how insane that is, and corrected it. I applaud it.

Brian, it may not change the deadbeat problem but it will help to prevent landlords from renting to deadbeats with dogs. The dogs aren't the problem, the deadbeats are the problem. Get rid of the deadbeats and you get rid of the problems.

Florida is a strict liability state when it comes to dog bites/attacks and landlords can be, and often are, held responsible for bites by their tenants' dogs. It has nothing to do with "ambulance chasers," it is just basic common sense. If a landlord allows a dangerous condition to exist on his property -- and pit bulls are dangerous -- then he should be held responsible if the dog injures someone. And with pit bull attacks, we're not talking about a few hundred dollars, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars! Furthermore, if you knew anything about pit bull owners, you would know they don't eve care enough to insure their household furnishings, do you really think such people are going to insure their land-sharks!

The bill is a good bill if there is not some hidden language in it. Every dog is inherently dangerous. All dogs have teeth, so they all have the ability to cause harm. The landlord should not be held responsible for the behavior of the tenants dog though. So bravo for this bill

I agree the bill is also sensible on the aspect of 'pit bulls' (by which different people mean different things, hence the '') as well as eliminating the ridiculous ambulance-chaser-friendly aspect of holding landlords responsible for tenants. If the hysterical view that 'pit bulls' really are so much more dangerous than other dogs, the owners of those other 'safe' dogs shouldn't care if they are liable for their dogs actions, because their dogs are so safe. And in the real world, where in fact any dog can be a threat to people under the right/wrong circumstances, then obviously any owner of that species of pet should be on the same legal footing. So the ruling was ridiculous under either the hysterical or realistic view of 'pit bulls' v other dogs, and the new compromise just applies common sense.

@Deborah Cole: If pit bull owners were responsible people, THEY WOULDN'T OWN PIT BULLS! As for those pit bulls "given up" or "killed" -- Well, Boo-Hoo! and Good riddance!

"..than being mauled to death or critically injured by a pit of any other dog that can lock their jaws around my neck and shred my body to pieces."

Then you should work toward legislation that bans ~any~ breed that could do this, including most shepherds, larger breed terriers, dobermans, rottweilers, mastiffs, boxers, chow chows, shar peis, etc. All of these are capable of grievous harm if they attack a person.

"I've read many cases where even the owner of a "friendly pit" "that would rather lick you to death" has been mauled by their beloved pet. It's not a risk I'm willing to take with my life."

And there are plenty of cases where the same happened with a non-Pit. Anecdotes are not appropriate for determining legislation. What you want to do with your life should not dictate what others want to do with their lives.

"Certain breeds just have it ingrained in their DNA to be aggressive..."

According to every professional breeding organization that recognizes the American Pit Bull Terrier, "Pit Bulls" are NOT naturally aggressive toward people. Such behavior is considered abnormal and NOT "ingrained in their DNA". You claim people cannot deny the facts... yet you are denying the facts above in lieu of your ~opinion~.

"Why do you think it's illegal to own a tiger? lion? monkey's? etc."

Fallacy. These are wild animals, not domestic. In addition, these are endangered species. There are multiple reasons, not related to owning dogs, that they are banned.

@Polly even with your opinions about the different breeds of dogs, do you think the landlord should be held strictly liable for the actions of the tenants pet? I DONT

SN: Poodle, Pekingnese, and Chihuahua maul and kill too. Just do a search for it.

I have an advanced degree in Genetics and don't understand your comment "Certain breeds just have it ingrained in their DNA to be aggressive and although some can be trained to be friendly pets, . . ."

I also know that pitties are trained to be dog-aggressive not people-aggressive. Look at the Michael Vick dogfighting dogs, most of whon are now pets and some are therapy dogs.

"I've read many cases where even the owner of a "friendly pit" "that would rather lick you to death" has been mauled by their beloved pet. "

I'd wager you've actually read few or no such cases. I've read many media accounts of dog aggression incidents involving (supposed) 'pit bulls' but none which included an interview with the dog's owner from *before* the incident. What you commonly see is a dog owner whose dog has already attacked somebody making a self serving statement that he never saw any aggression in the dog. And then most web news items like this also have comment thread debates debating 'pit bulls' where owners of *other dogs, not involved in such incidents* say their dogs are not human aggressive. And any brief review of statistics shows most of those statement must be true (millions of 'pit bulls', v. per CDC something under 10 actual deaths in US per year related to 'pit bulls', and even including the much larger number of non-fatal maulings it's a tiny % of the total number of such dogs).

So unless you can produce actual evidence, your claim to have read many cases where owners said their 'pit bulls' were docile *before* the dog displayed human aggression seems highly doubtful.

"...most of us have only heard of this phenomena with pits, rotties, akitas etc."

You hear about it for two reasons:

First, WHEN a bite occurs, it is deadlier the larger the dog is. That doesn't mean the larger dog is more likely to bite, simply that it's bite is worse. However, you cannot ban a dog based on what ~could~ happen ~if~ it bit. Would you ban compact cars because you're more likely to die if you get in an accident in one?

Second, is a combination of the media and human psychology. People like categories and "black-and-white" thinking; it is an innate part of our psychology that helps us interpret the complex world in a manner that avoids cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, this defense mechanism is what is behind racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. The media knows this and caters to our distorted schemas; they report only what we ~want~ to hear, not what we necessarily ~need~ to hear.

In addition, members of the media often have their own biases, which taints what they report on. Worse are the bloggers, who post opinions misrepresented as facts, which are then regurgitated by the media or those who want these "facts" to be true. The infamous DogsBite.org and the owner Colleen Lynn is an example; she posts statistics that are often taken out of context, misanalyzed, or completely fabricated, and then people use these statistics to support their opinions and even legislation.

So, in the end, we only hear what we want to hear and the media caters to this. If we hear that X breed is more often involved in dog bites, we assume it's true... regardless of the facts. When the media reports on dog bites, they are more likely to report about said breeds because of their own bias and because it's what the viewers want to hear.

"But, if they are not naturally aggressive towards people how do you explain those that have always lived in a loving, caring environment that suddenly turn on their owners or others?"

Any domesticated animal can eventually turn aggressive. ANY animal. There are reports of ~parrots~ that became so vicious people gave them up. An animal has it in their DNA to be wild; even people do this and I could provide you with case studies of those raised in loving homes who suddenly developed a mental disorder. Sometimes it is an environmental factor and sometimes it is a repressed memory; while the human may be able to help us pinpoint the "trigger", a dog cannot. In addition, humans at least have some cognitive ability to control their own behavior; pets and domestic farm animals work on instinct alone.

Basically, you cannot target a breed simply because it could snap. ~Any~ animal could snap; I have never owned a Pit Bull, and yet had pets that, after years of being nice, became nasty toward the ends of their lives. Animal nature occurs regardless of species or breed.

I used to have a LARGE show German Shepard when I was in Germany, oddly enough it was the small dogs like pekinese and miniature poodles, etc that used to always attack my dog when I was walking him. It was my experience that the owners of these small dogs thought that it was "cute" when their dogs would nip at my dogs heels.

I agree with your last paragraph. The example...... well.....ummm.....its a little different than a pet. Pets are legal. Meth lab is illegal. :-) Just picking at you.

The earlier ruling made Landlords strictly liable. This new bill removes the strict liability from the landlord and places it where it belongs. (with the pet owner) It also removes the breed specific language.

Polly, in the end landlords are a business and as such they control the use of the property in the lease. If they say no smoking, no changing the color of the paint. They do this to protect their intrest. The court well recognizes that if you want that kind of control over a renter to protect your intrest then you have a obligation to protect those around your business. If a landlord gives up complete control in the lease then the court will say hey what do you want this poor landlord to do? You can't cherry pick like that in business. This is very well understood by commercial landlords because they have legal advisors. Many well intended folks go into renting properties doing things they don't know are wrong and that had they known about, maybe they would have chosen another way to invest their money. The whole issue really is about personal responsiblity. 35 states have it where a dog bite regardless of who is at fault, you exchange insurance companies and just like a car wreck both parties are made whole. One free bite is a dumb law. HB78 says it is sometimes a good law? Why does it ever make sense that what you know about how your car is maintained would have to do with if you pay a claim or not. What difference does it make whether you know or expect to know your dog will bite once it bites? Really think about the issue which is not and never been Pit bulls or landlords. Remember once your dog bites no matter why your free bite is gone. What Next free car wrecks??????

"This might have been better suited to a referendum though."

I disagree. This isn't a civil right (we don't have the right to own whatever pet we want), but a matter of justice (who is responsible when a pet harms/kills another?). In that case, it is not up to the public to decide because most of the public have no education or knowledge on the subject of law or animal breeds.

The problem originated with a combination of poor decisions by legal professionals (who based a decision on hearsay and pressure from individuals with agendas) and overstepping of authority (judicial system is there to interpret laws, not ~make~ them). So, in essence, this falls to the legislators (whose job it is to make the laws) to fix... which it seems we all agree are making some positive progress.

Skye, you are either lying about your background or you should ask your training institution for your money back. Dogs are bred they are called breeds because they do not exist in nature. They do not exist in nature because a breed does not inherit a desire to say hey I am a golden retriever I will only mate to other golden retrievers and have that behavior be a natural byproduct of it‘s instinct. If that happened golden retrievers would be a species and we would not to breed them each time every time every generation. Dogs are bred specifically to appear and behave in particular ways. To understand this you may be able to train a dog to bite and hold but you can’t train it to bite and hold while you hit it with a 2x4. Dogs that let go are normal dog that do not let go are ill bred no matter how they behave otherwise.
On the Vick dogs you are wrong also. Vick didn't kill losers he killed quiters to preserve the don't let go instinct. Those dog and all Pit bull are inherently dangerous

"Knee jerk" - "a judge" are you kidding? This took 5 years. This went to the highest court and then survived a motion to reconcider. besides the 3 lower court judges we had 7 in the special court and 7 in the high court and then the same 7 basically in the motion to reconsider. Not all agreed that is a fact. A judge and knee jerk is far from fact also.

Then there is the situation of triggering. Perhaps a dog doesn't like anyone coming near his food bowl when he is eating. Perhaps he doesn't like the 2-year-old screaming. Perhaps a thunderstorm is going on. Each of these may be tolerated by the dog, but all of them happening at the same time (dog eating during thunderstorm with kid running screaming toward the dog eating) can cause the dog to go above his threshold and do something uncalled for.

I explain it saying that nature gives us a potential and nurture determines how close we come to reaching that potential.

"Most Pit owners are degenerates..."

Evidence to back this statement up? Could you being any more insulting to a large swath of the population with your generalization?

Brook that was what he was after. Some people are just like that.

How many Yorkies do you know? Mine doesn't bite or attack, but she's extremely aggressive. Most of them are. If they weren't toy size they'd be a force to be reckoned with. Their people always know if they're adequately doing their job of pleasing them.

Sorry Tony, I disagree. your point is about being able to sue somebody or collect damages from someone that most likely has insurance. That does not to protect a single kid. Insurance does not stop dog bites.

I don't want any child bitten by a dangerous dog. I don't want any child shot by a dangerous weapon. But we have both, and litigation or collecting insurance money is not the answer to solving the problem.

@ Tony Your example is not really a good example. As a homeowner without a mortgage, I am not required to carry insurance. Therefore Both myself and the renter would have uncovered dogs and the liability would be on me the homeowner/dog owner and the renter/dog owner and the landlord under the present ruling. Which is totally unfair.
The new bill would have the liability removed from the land lord which is the way it should have been to begin with. BTW I DONT OWN A DOG

Fifa, It is in fact part of the cure but I would be happy to hear a angle that added to this aspect or that would work better without. Remember I first went after the dog owner in the criminal court. This is a issue in which my knowledge and my actions have attacked the issue on all fronts. The suing part is a very real factor and has zero to do with gaining money but everything to do with costing money. This is actually always the goal of someone in my position. These suits are not money making ventures. Anybody that offers up a human that way for finacial gain would be sick. Also there are very real cost that come with doing what I have advanced and very real cost and set backs as victims. No different then when a family member is very sick and you have to do both work and care. There are many issues my goal is to inform people.

I applaud you for admitting you have a personal interest in the case, so we can judge your objectivity accordingly.

But your logic on insurance is simply wrong. You don't have to have homeowners insurance just because you own a house, but only if you have a mortgage on the house, to protect the bank's interest (you'll find at least 25% of owned houses in the US don't have mortgages, mine doesn't, it's up to me to have insurance or not). And the reason the bank's interest is at risk is that in a single family home liability issues will arise from the direct actions of the people who own and live in the house, same people buying the insurance. In case of renting as a business it's different. You seem to propose landlord liability for the actions of *somebody else*. And the whole crux of the issue is whether such third party liability is just. Of course it's *convenient* for personal injury lawyers and their clients to be able to sue third parties, but you haven't answered why it's *just*: because it isn't.

Again, why shouldn't Rent-a-Center be liable for the actions of people it rents furniture to? Your same argument could be applied: 'it would make Rent-a-Center get liability insurance or force the customer to get it', but that doesn't answer why we'd have such a crazy requirement imposed on Rent-a-Center in a rule of law society. Or any company which sells stuff to 'deadbeats', not just rents: why isn't the deadbeat's dog their responsibility?

Tony, it is almost always about the "money".

FiFA, Isnt that the point you cannot have liability unless the actions is bonded either by a criminal punishment. If you hit a dog with a 2x4 you get criminal charges of animal cruelty no such thing exist in the reverse. On the civil side we all agree that a victim should be made whole and forget that we say that with the expectation that it is feasible. We have that expectation because as a home owner you have a asset to bond your liability. As a mortgage holder you have insurance forced on you that bonds that liability. You are using your house to reside in. A landlord and a renter visit a risk for which they do not account for. One free bite and HB78 both suppose there are situations where a victim bitten by someones choice to have a pet can be sometimes the victims burden and most often when the dog owner is a renter. I will take all models that solve the reality of what happened to my son for others in the future.

@FIFA: You are WRONG! Making landlords liable for dog bite damages protects thousands of kids and adults. Every apartment building that allows pit bulls places children and other residents in unreasonable and preventable danger. If landlords knew they were liable for damages caused by their residents' pit bulls, they would no longer allow pit bulls. Within a short time -- as happened in Miami-Dade, Florida (which has had a pit bull ban in effect since 1989) -- pit bull attacks would cease because those who owned them wouldn't be able to find a place to live.

The ruling said more than Pit bulls are inherently dangerous. It said that landlords would be held strictly liable. Landlords should not have strict liability. Now our law makers are seeing the errors of their ways. Dog owners are responsible for their dogs actions period, no the landlord. To hold the landlord strictly liable is just ludicrous. I believe the lawmakers think so too.

correct and as I said I support that because they are a business not a resident mortgage holder who extends insurance. The renter has neither asset or insurance to bond assuming liability. A homeowner has the home as a bond or a policy as a bond. What is your point?

Tony just because a renter doesnt own the house does NOT mean they dont have other assets. You and those that think like you, want to hold the lessor responsible for the negligence of the lessee. If this was truly about insurances you would have tried to make legislation that would force lessees to carry insurance instead of trying to make the lessor strictly liable. The way your case was presented and the way that we have discussed previously, you just wanted a way to hold the lessor responsible so that you could try to sue the lessor who might have more of a chance of paying. This is not just.

The issue here is not about the insurance companies. The law as it sits now holds the homeowner/lessor responsible for the lessee's property's actions. This is a problem. Let's not cloud the issue here. The law is/was wrong and should be corrected. Our legislators seem to realize this and are taking action to correct the wrong.

Polly - I know attorneys all too well and probably a lot more than your involvement with them.

An ambulance chaser is a special brand of lawyer in my view. They will take almost any case involving an insurer. They usually advertise on television. They rarely ever see the courthouse. They almost always work on a contingent fee basis. They settle the vast majority of the cases with insurers.

The ambulance chaser preventer normally works for an hourly fee trying to design legal documents to protect their client's interest.

When it comes to professions, the ambulance chaser is perhaps one of the worst things our society has to offer.

David Crossgrove, Are you out of your mind? That would only make sense fi you put humans first before animals and responsiblity before your choices. I am insane enough to see you are correct. The beauty of it is if people were thinking solution they would realize all the ruling I got said was Pit bulls are inherently dangerous and as such you must be held striclty liable. There is no ban or restrictions on them in the very least. They could change that ruling to all dogs and only the same few that show concern now would scream. Everybody else conducts themselves as if they are completely responsible anyway. In short if they expand strict liabilty to all dog owners how does it change anything for Pit bull owners who are under it now?

Tony you keep saying all the ruling says is that "pit bulls" are inherently dangerous and must be held strictly liable. This is not true. The other part of the ruling, you so clearly seem to leave out, is that the lessor is being held strictly liable for the lessee's "pit Bull". The second part is what is the real issue here. Let us not forget this and not try to put half truths out here.

Well just like in a car accident you dont hold the manufacturer strictly liable for the accident. The homeowner should not be held strictly liable for a tenant's dog bite.

Dogs don't come with a title...and if they are not licensed (tagged) or registered there is no proof of ownership...

Is it possible to care for an animal without claiming ownership..?...or can ownership be forced upon you by law..?

How could a dog be insured without proof of ownership Tony?

@Buck, I don't know, I think it is a great question that needs to be resolved. I think if people start to pose question with the hope of getting answers we will all be better off but too often they pose question to obstruct progress on what the think may hurt thier intrest. The group who has changed the most with no regard to human public is not landlords, most dog owners, homeowners or non dog owners. It has been the "humane" groups pit bull pushers and insurance industry.

I have this cat that for some reason keeps showing up on my property...it always looks a little hungry so I put food out for it...I noticed it had fleas so i bought it a flea collar...damn thing just makes itself at home....If one day it scratches the child down the street in the eye and causes some major damage who would be responsible for this situation..? Or would this fall perhaps into a grey area that could never be resolved..?

You are correct I do not know much of you or what you advocated for. I do know what you have written here on this forum. This is what I speak of. I can only respond to what you have written about in this forum.
Dont forget the train travels in both directions and you dont know what I have dont or have advocated for.

Statics mean nothing here. We both agree all dogs bite. Where we dont agree is that landlords are guilty without having their day in court.

With is line of thinking you would have every business get bonded and insured as there could be an accident at any time and any where. MaryKay distributors should be bonded and insured?

The insurance indeed follow the car not the driver. If you are driving my car and run a red light the ticket goes to me. When I go to court and prove you were driving and was not in possession of my car, you get the ticket and charge, not me.

Again when there is an car accident the insurance is sued if there is fault found, which in most cases involves negligence of some sort. The party that is found at fault (negligent) is then responsible and their insurance is named in the suit. With what is on the books now the landlord is automatically found at fault. This would be a kin to you having an accident and you being automatically at fault because you own the car.

Tony I would expect the homeowner or his insurance to cover my expenses because the owner of the property was negligent by not having the side walk cleared in a timely manner. He was negligent. If the owner then wanted to go after the tenant because he didnt live up to their agreement then so be it.

If I were your lawyer I would have advised you to sue both too. You won the case because of your particular circumstances. But the homeowner had their day in court. I just dont think the landlord should not have their day in court and be held strictly liable.

HB 78/SB 160, creates a new standard by which all dog owners in civil action cases, regardless of the dog’s breed, are presumed liable for attacks unless owners can prove they did everything possible to avoid the attack and it would also reverse the strict liability on landlords.
To me this is a fair law. The dog bit someone. The owner of the dog should be in control of the dog , so when it bites someone it is their fault.
We will see in the next few weeks if it sticks. I for one hope it does.

I think it will go thru with some amendments, but i agree. In speech it appears to address the problem but it entertains this idea that if you choose to own a dog and it harms someone if you took extraordinary precautions you cannot be held liable. That means that you still believe in one free bite. It makes a distinction were none exists and is not designed to address everyday dog bites which is really what cumulatively the insurance industry is concerned and working this angle. Not some million dollar drop in the bucket case. You would agree if my car slipped into gear and drifted into you that my insurance should pay and that my efforts to act safely and my knowledge of cars should be a ridiculous defense as any dog can bite to say well sorry about your dent but I didn‘t know even if true, means what? You would say its your car, I say it’s your dog . This is retarded and likely people take that because they want something else Pit bull rights or landlord rights. Now Rebuttable Presumption will come back to bite, but if applied to all other dog breeds and landlords until these dogs do something as repeated as Pit bulls would make more sense to me as it does in product recalls. I don’t have to live with either bill in my case but I can assure you it won’t advance anyone’s cause except insures for reasons I stated in the first three posts on this blog. What ever they cook up , it will not serve us you or me as we would hope, I assure you.

Yes you are correct Tony ....what ever the cook up wont serve us!!! LOL

It is a tough crowd. I understand your necessity in going to court. Additionally I can not imagine the medical bills. I hope your Son has fully recovered.

One free bite is about as stupid as stupid gets!! If I or my dog or my car or my icy sidewalk causes injury then, you are darn skippy I am responsible. But to say that I am automatically responsible for my tenants dogs or car, to me, is just ludicrous. I am automatically responsible for the icy sidewalk but then if I, as the lessor, find the tenant is in violation of the terms of the lease, then I would sue the tenant to recover my losses.
Believe me Tony, I have read your website about your case and understand where you are coming from but I still dont think the landlord is AUTOMATICALLY liable. Your case has circumstances that would show some liability on the landlords side but not all dog bite/maul cases have that element.
You by bringing this case have cause dialog which can do nothing but help here.