babsc71 Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I'm a single woman in her late twenties, living alone in a rural area, no near neighbours. I have a Staffie x. I have a notice on my gate stating that "Dogs live here". My bedroom is broken into and a man attacks me, then tries to steal my stuff. My dog attacks the intruder causing massive injuries that puts this man in hospital. What happens next? Your thoughts please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 I don't think the DDA covers attacks in your own home but I think the attacker may be able to bring charges against you for his injuries. Shocking isn't it that someone can enter your home uninvited and you get sued if he's injured [as I say I think thats the case] I sincerely hope this is a hypothetical situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendbert Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Does the same hypothetical question apply if the dog in the scenario was any other breed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiye Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) My dad was at home alone - wheel chair bound suffering from quite severe MS. A dozen dogs of varying breeds at the time. Dog notices all over the property. The burglar recieved 22 stitches from the Yorkie and £3400 in compensation. My dad couldnt even claim for the damage to his property or the vet fees where the burglar had kicked and broken the leg of the 3 legged rotti x. Edited January 3, 2007 by raiye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 That's bl00dy disgusting Raiye Did the guy get done for breaking into your dad's property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiye Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 They tried to demand a couple of the dogs were PTS but because it was not a public place they could only claim damages and loss of earnings!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby1Nic Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 They tried to demand a couple of the dogs were PTS but because it was not a public place they could only claim damages and loss of earnings!! Good grief the law really is an ass sometimes "loss of earnings" - unable to get out on the rob more like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delfin Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Not quite the same but similar. This was on our local news tonight in Kent. 4 years ago a 7 year old was attacked by 2 ABTs. The news article made out that the boy was innocent of any crime and that his dad knew these dogs to be not child friendly. Then they bothered right at the end to mention that the child had jumped into the dogs garden for his football. They made out it was all the dogs fault, yet if you know about the dogs, you do not allow your child to jump over the fence for a ball, you get him to knock on the front door. Train the child as well as the dog. Years ago this was trespass The outcome was that a judge ordered that the dogs were pts. The owner appealled and the police today said that even after all the sentence then all the appeals there is nothing they can do. Even if he loses the next appeal, they cannot actually make him have his dogs pts, they can just send him to jail for comtempt of court. The owner has strung this out for 4 years and is not giving in and appears quite willing to go to jail to save his dogs. What is this saying about our law. The dogs were protecting their own land when they attacked the child (which I know was awful but!!), yet even if they judge says pts, the owner need not do this. I don't know how true this is as you know how they twist things in the press, but this is how it was reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 3, 2007 Report Share Posted January 3, 2007 Not quite the same but similar. This was on our local news tonight in Kent. 4 years ago a 7 year old was attacked by 2 ABTs. The news article made out that the boy was innocent of any crime and that his dad knew these dogs to be not child friendly. Then they bothered right at the end to mention that the child had jumped into the dogs garden for his football. They made out it was all the dogs fault, yet if you know about the dogs, you do not allow your child to jump over the fence for a ball, you get him to knock on the front door. Train the child as well as the dog. Years ago this was trespass The outcome was that a judge ordered that the dogs were pts. The owner appealled and the police today said that even after all the sentence then all the appeals there is nothing they can do. Even if he loses the next appeal, they cannot actually make him have his dogs pts, they can just send him to jail for comtempt of court. The owner has strung this out for 4 years and is not giving in and appears quite willing to go to jail to save his dogs. What is this saying about our law. The dogs were protecting their own land when they attacked the child (which I know was awful but!!), yet even if they judge says pts, the owner need not do this. I don't know how true this is as you know how they twist things in the press, but this is how it was reported. this guy sounds like he should have a chat with Trevor cooper. If I was in his position I most certainly would. Trevor if you didnt know id a lawyer who used to specialise in canine law - knows it inside out... he doesnt do it any more as his main job but still keeps his paw in and this sounds right up his street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffymad Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Not quite the same but similar. This was on our local news tonight in Kent. 4 years ago a 7 year old was attacked by 2 ABTs. The news article made out that the boy was innocent of any crime and that his dad knew these dogs to be not child friendly. Then they bothered right at the end to mention that the child had jumped into the dogs garden for his football. They made out it was all the dogs fault, yet if you know about the dogs, you do not allow your child to jump over the fence for a ball, you get him to knock on the front door. Train the child as well as the dog. Years ago this was trespass The outcome was that a judge ordered that the dogs were pts. The owner appealled and the police today said that even after all the sentence then all the appeals there is nothing they can do. Even if he loses the next appeal, they cannot actually make him have his dogs pts, they can just send him to jail for comtempt of court. The owner has strung this out for 4 years and is not giving in and appears quite willing to go to jail to save his dogs. What is this saying about our law. The dogs were protecting their own land when they attacked the child (which I know was awful but!!), yet even if they judge says pts, the owner need not do this. I don't know how true this is as you know how they twist things in the press, but this is how it was reported. These 2 dogs were actually not APBT but ASBT (american staffordshire bull terriers) and were normally in a solid iron kennel and run. The boy wanted to retrieve his ball and was bitten by both dogs and received around 30 odd stitches. I remember this as it was all over the news etc. They interviewed the child and showed pictures of him in hospital feeling sorry for himself. Only a couple of weeks later did they actually report that said dogs were not APBT, they were under control, i.e. solid kennel run and that the child in fact was at fault. As your property is currently not part of any DDA legislation, I doubt they will be able to actually rule that both dogs will be PTS. Cindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts