Dog Bite During Unlawful Entry

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

I agree about 95%. If you make your first sentence 'SHOULD lose', then I'd agree 100%. But there are some stupid juries out there, so I wouldn't discount the possibility of them winning.

OP needs an attorney. Fast.



I agree on both counts. I've never liked little yappy dogs and don't like big "defense" dogs. I prefer collies, labs, setters, etc - dogs who are fiercely loyal and would die to protect their family, but who are not aggressive.

The only exception would be German Shepherds. Properly raised and trained, they're good family dogs and not overly aggressive. Of course, there are a lot of badly trained ones, so you have to be careful.

Funnily enough, I know of several Rotties that I would trust leaps and bounds above my german shepherd. Not always, but typically speaking, its nurture over nature. My Border/aussie is aggressive in some applications and totally submissive in others. He herds the shepherd, and has been known to do the same for the kids in the family. But when I'm around? Its usually floppy belly up!

 

[nextwife]

Not to hijack, here BUT... The dog, per the OP (apparently he does have video to back this up), only attacked AFTER the man kicked at him. Its a response a lot of animals will have. For instance, when a Rottweiler is involved in a situation, unlike many breeds, they actually will be the agressor towards the other agressor. NOT towards the animal being attacked.

I do not believe that this dog, BASED UPON THE FACTS GIVEN HERE, is a liability toward anyone who is just in the home. AGAIN, BASED UPON THE FACTS GIVEN HERE. Soldier entered home, dog did not know soldier, soldier acted in an agressive manner toward dog. Dog defended himself and home. I don't see anything wrong with the situation AS STATED.... BTW, cap'd those statements because IF someone were to take what I said out of context... you see where I'm going.

I agree, Virtually ANY dog breed's natural inclination is to protect itself and it's territory. A virtual stranger entering the home without the obvious approval of the "pack leader" (dog owner) is at risk. ANY breed might attack or be aggressive in such a circumstance. It is one reason we have domesticated dogs: their NATURAL inclination to protect family and territory.

Why should the dog have to pay the price for her bone-headed stunt of sending someone into the home her husband was occupying without his knowledge or presence? The dog was doing what dogs would normally do if a stranger were sneaking around the house.

I might talk to the humane society, a doberman rescue group and show them the tapes and get them involved to protect the dog. Not the dogs fault this guy was slinking around the house without the owner's knowledge.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

I agree, Virtually ANY dog breed's natural inclination is to protect itself and it's territory. A virtual stranger entering the home without the obvious approval of the "pack leader" (dog owner) is at risk. ANY breed might attack or be aggressive in such a circumstance. It is one reason we have domesticated dogs: their NATURAL inclination to protect family and territory.

Why should the dog have to pay the price for her bone-headed stunt of sending someone into the home her husband was occupying without his knowledge or presence? The dog was doing what dogs would normally do if a stranger were sneaking around the house.

I might talk to the humane society, a doberman rescue group and show them the tapes and get them involved to protect the dog. Not the dogs fault this guy was slinking around the house without the owner's knowledge.

SLINKING?????? You're kidding me, right? SLINKING??? He KICKED the front door in.... not hardly SLINKING.... If someone were to kick MY door in, they'd find themselves at the wrong end of the solution to a lead deficiency. I don't blame the dog at all!

 

[amd64a]

1) I do NOT have exclusive possession of the house, HOWEVER, I have IN WRITING, and agreement between me and the ex - which was agreed by our lawyers - that she would give me 24 hours notice before entering the premises.

2) There was a domestic violence incident against me in another state from HER several years ago, and I took the report to the municipal police along with the agreement from our lawyers. The Police contacted her and told her she was to abide by the 24 hour notice or face removal from the property.

3) The security system was installed because of several break ins around here, and the fact the ex came and went as she pleased a few times WITHOUT notifying me as per the agreement.

The video tape explicitly shows and sounds this man trying to assault the dog, and the dog backed up a few feet at first, but then bit as the man continued to advance toward him.

4) Once it was decided there were no STATE criminal charges to be filed against me by the Police, the local Municipal Court quickly reviewed the incident, and determined no LOCAL dangerous dog/bite ordinances were violated.

My issue is if a FAMILY COURT judge can declare a dog "dangerous", despite the Police, animal control, and a Municipal Court saying otherwise.

I understand that divorce/family court are DIFFERENT than Municipal and/or Court of Common Pleas CRIMINAL courts. MY issue therefore is can the judge assigned to my DIVORCE case declare the dog dangerous and have it removed and/or destroyed at the request of my Ex, since I probably will NOT be able to use the video as evidence the dog acted in defense of itself.

The issue with the recording ISNT that it is illegal - the Police and Municipal court viewed it and BASED THEIR DECISION off of it.

What I was told is there is a DIFFERENT STANDARD of EVIDENCE in FAMILY court, and that the video probably would not be admissible there.

5) And as far as not hiring my family friend. I was told that if i received legal counsel "free" or at a substantially reduced rate, the ex could then file to have ME cover HER legal expenses because I was refusing to sign the affidavit of consent in order to save up to buy her out.

 

[Bali Hai]

1) I do NOT have exclusive possession of the house, HOWEVER, I have IN WRITING, and agreement between me and the ex - which was agreed by our lawyers - that she would give me 24 hours notice before entering the premises.

2) There was a domestic violence incident against me in another state from HER several years ago, and I took the report to the municipal police along with the agreement from our lawyers. The Police contacted her and told her she was to abide by the 24 hour notice or face removal from the property.

3) The security system was installed because of several break ins around here, and the fact the ex came and went as she pleased a few times WITHOUT notifying me as per the agreement.

The video tape explicitly shows and sounds this man trying to assault the dog, and the dog backed up a few feet at first, but then bit as the man continued to advance toward him.

4) Once it was decided there were no STATE criminal charges to be filed against me by the Police, the local Municipal Court quickly reviewed the incident, and determined no LOCAL dangerous dog/bite ordinances were violated.

My issue is if a FAMILY COURT judge can declare a dog "dangerous", despite the Police, animal control, and a Municipal Court saying otherwise.

I understand that divorce/family court are DIFFERENT than Municipal and/or Court of Common Pleas CRIMINAL courts. MY issue therefore is can the judge assigned to my DIVORCE case declare the dog dangerous and have it removed and/or destroyed at the request of my Ex, since I probably will NOT be able to use the video as evidence the dog acted in defense of itself.

The issue with the recording ISNT that it is illegal - the Police and Municipal court viewed it and BASED THEIR DECISION off of it.

What I was told is there is a DIFFERENT STANDARD of EVIDENCE in FAMILY court, and that the video probably would not be admissible there.

5) And as far as not hiring my family friend. I was told that if i received legal counsel "free" or at a substantially reduced rate, the ex could then file to have ME cover HER legal expenses because I was refusing to sign the affidavit of consent in order to save up to buy her out.

Um, you won't get any definitve answers here about how a family court might view this. Get my drift??

Family court is a different animal, however, if the dog ripped out the soldiers throat, there isn't any other court or jury that would not side with the dog based on the facts you have given thus far.

 

[majomom1]

Um, you won't get any definitve answers here about how a family court might view this. Get my drift??

Family court is a different animal, however, if the dog ripped out the soldiers throat, there isn't any other court or jury that would not side with the dog based on the facts you have given thus far.

I don't think it will even be an issue in Family Court.

What is ex going to say... That she didn't give 24 hr notice and told her friend to kick in the door?

SHE may have a right to enter the property... but having her friend kick in the door is a whole other matter.

 

[LdiJ]

1) I do NOT have exclusive possession of the house, HOWEVER, I have IN WRITING, and agreement between me and the ex - which was agreed by our lawyers - that she would give me 24 hours notice before entering the premises.

2) There was a domestic violence incident against me in another state from HER several years ago, and I took the report to the municipal police along with the agreement from our lawyers. The Police contacted her and told her she was to abide by the 24 hour notice or face removal from the property.

3) The security system was installed because of several break ins around here, and the fact the ex came and went as she pleased a few times WITHOUT notifying me as per the agreement.

The video tape explicitly shows and sounds this man trying to assault the dog, and the dog backed up a few feet at first, but then bit as the man continued to advance toward him.

4) Once it was decided there were no STATE criminal charges to be filed against me by the Police, the local Municipal Court quickly reviewed the incident, and determined no LOCAL dangerous dog/bite ordinances were violated.

My issue is if a FAMILY COURT judge can declare a dog "dangerous", despite the Police, animal control, and a Municipal Court saying otherwise.

I understand that divorce/family court are DIFFERENT than Municipal and/or Court of Common Pleas CRIMINAL courts. MY issue therefore is can the judge assigned to my DIVORCE case declare the dog dangerous and have it removed and/or destroyed at the request of my Ex, since I probably will NOT be able to use the video as evidence the dog acted in defense of itself.

The issue with the recording ISNT that it is illegal - the Police and Municipal court viewed it and BASED THEIR DECISION off of it.

What I was told is there is a DIFFERENT STANDARD of EVIDENCE in FAMILY court, and that the video probably would not be admissible there.

5) And as far as not hiring my family friend. I was told that if i received legal counsel "free" or at a substantially reduced rate, the ex could then file to have ME cover HER legal expenses because I was refusing to sign the affidavit of consent in order to save up to buy her out.

I don't think that there is any chance that the family court can order your dog destroyed. Family court doesn't have that authority.

However, unless one of you petitions for exclusive use of the marital home, a family court judge could possibly order that the dog be removed from the home. Unless one of you gets exclusive use of the home the home has to be safe for both of you, and honestly you are going to have a hard time proving that the home is safe for both of you.

However, you cannot really petition for exclusive use of the marital home based on the hope that someday you can buy her out. You either have to petition for exclusive use until the home is sold, (with it immediately being placed on the market for fair market value) or petition for exclusive use until you can arrange a refinance (usually within a few months).

Therefore, in my opinion this whole situation is going to result in something being decided about the marital home, whether its what you want or not.

I also think that you could be facing a lawsuit from the soldier. His entry was NOT unlawful. He had permission from one of the homeowners to enter the home. Of course that lawsuit would include your wife because she is also an owner of the home, but I certainly think that it would be in your best interests to report the incident to your homeowners insurance company ASAP. If you don't report it ASAP you might be waiving coverage.

 

[Bali Hai]

I don't think it will even be an issue in Family Court.

What is ex going to say... That she didn't give 24 hr notice and told her friend to kick in the door?

SHE may have a right to enter the property... but having her friend kick in the door is a whole other matter.

Agree with that majomommie!!

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

If the wife had given 24 hour notice, I'm sure the dog would NOT have been there. THerefore, it appears that the WIFE violated the agreement.

 

[nextwife]

IMHO, how about charging HER with giving access to someone who was dangerous to the dog?

 

[LdiJ]

I don't think that some of the posters are not being fair to the OP. He has a potentially serious situation on his hands and many of you are acting as if there is no possibility that its going to cause him any trouble.

I think that is shortsighted and dangerous to his wellbeing.

 

[Bali Hai]

Soldier boy may give it little more thought the next time he receives orders from a knitwit to kick a door down.

He clearly was out-of-line whether he was given so-called "permission" from the owner or not. He is responsible to pay for the door, scaring the dog and his bites.

Nobody but soldier boy himself caused any of this to happen.

 

[stealth2]

I suspect there will be consequences for ALL parties. I feel sorry for the dog, personally.

 

[nextwife]

I suspect there will be consequences for ALL parties. I feel sorry for the dog, personally.

I agree. This stranger breaks into the house, terrorizes the dog, and the person who sent the guy-who-terrorized-the-dog wants to punish the dog for what she caused.

 

[Bali Hai]

I agree. This stranger breaks into the house, terrorizes the dog, and the person who sent the guy-who-terrorized-the-dog wants to punish the dog for what she caused.

I personally don't think that anything is going to happen to that dog. The dog was clearly provoked by GI Joe.