farg Dallas! Thread

[Diomedes]

Looks like he was having some landscaping done and they got out. did not secure his dogs.

Yeah, that's fixed.  Doesn't matter what was happening on the property.  Any dog that "gets" out was actually "let" out by an owner who failed to contain them.  It's not rocket science, and it's not something that happened to Zeke.  It's something he did, he is responsible for, and it's further proof that he's a farging piece of shtein. 

[SD]

I'd like to see the whole story. If the landscaping company is being sued there's some fault. I can't imagine filing a lawsuit against a famous athlete worth over $100 million and also a landscaping company which is probably worth $100.

[ice grillin you]

Looks like he was having some landscaping done and they got out. The landscaping company is also being sued. I don't blame him for having dogs protect his home I'm sure he has a lot of assets and he's a target. For the money he has though he should have had them trained at a top notch obedience school.

all purpose war....got the rottweilers by the door....and i feed em gun powder so they can devour...the criminals tryin to drop my decimals

[Diomedes]

There's nothing more to know.  Dude didn't control his dogs.  Landscaper, architect, baby sitter...so what.  His dogs, his responsibility.

It's like rear ending someone.  I don't care how fast or unexpectedly the victim stopped, you supposed to be following at a safe distance and since you hit the person, you clearly wasn't.

[SD]

So if he gave specific instructions to not leave the gate open so the dogs don't get out and the landscapers did that's on him? Go walk into your neighbors yard, open their gates and let their dogs out. You're now on video doing that and the dogs hurt somebody. Do you think the courts are finding the owners responsible?

[QB Eagles]

Typically the owner is legally liable for the actions of an animal. Someone else who is considered a temporary keeper or caretaker might also be liable. Note the "also"; the liability of the owner is not diminished one iota. And landscaper stretches the definition of keeper, unless they advertised professional dog care as one of the services they provide.

The moment you relied on the landscaper to prevent your neighbors from being attacked, you were a neglectful owner that was responsible for whatever damage that dog did.

[SD]

Are you a judge or a lawyer? Go video yourself letting the neighbors dog out of the yard. That's willful misconduct. I'm sure the landscapers let them out accidentally but if they're being sued it's because of neglect. Nobody's suing Joe landscaper if Joe millionaire's at fault.

Gonna refer back to this:

I'd like to see the whole story.

[QB Eagles]

If you bring a dangerous animal into your area and all it would take is some jerkoff opening your gate to unleash its bites and mauls on your neighborhood, you as the owner are absolutely responsible. Legally and morally. And of course we can prove Zeke knew his animals are dangerous because it's the third farging time he's been sued over this.

I mean, you're held responsible if some trespassing teenager drowns in your pool at night. Of course you get sued when your animal attacks people. You only have the liberty to possess dangerous animals because it is assumed you have responsibility to prevent them from harming people. Not your landscaper. You.

[Diomedes]

Are you a judge or a lawyer? ...Nobody's suing Joe landscaper if Joe millionaire's at fault.

I don't have to be a judge to know you're responsible for damage your animal causes.  Critical thinking is helpful in a confusing world.

Regarding the latter point, once you're suing, you sue anyone you can and let the lawyers and court do the rest.  Your insurance company doesn't give a shtein who pays; they want their money.  If they can get it from the landscapers insurance company, fine.  The fact these folks are suing the landscaper tells me only that they've got a competent lawyer.

[Rome]

My friend owned a rotty for years.  His name was Exxon. They found him abandoned as a puppy at a gas station in North Florida.  He was the sweetest dog I've ever come across. They had him trained, of course, and like any rotty he could be intimidating, but he was a good boy and didn't have the sort of menacing attributes typically associated with the breed.

It all comes down to training and the owners not being irresponsible iceholes.  It's no surprise that a total jerkoff like Elliott would have dogs who run wild and attack people. 

[ice grillin you]

That's bullshtein.  Evil is in the genes of those kinds of dogs.  Yes nurture has an effect but the nicest rott or pit is only nice until they lock their throat on your kids neck.

The most abused lab has still never attacked anyone.

[rjs246]

Lol. You're unhinged.

[SD]

That's bullshtein.  Evil is in the genes of those kinds of dogs.  Yes nurture has an effect but the nicest rott or pit is only nice until they lock their throat on your kids neck.

The most abused lab has still never attacked anyone.

No matter how old or mean the dog is none of them are untrainable. A moron like me trained 2 dangerous pits to be obedient dogs you could trust around anyone or any other dog. Pits are wonderful dogs they've just been breed and trained for the wrong reasons. Dogs are highly intelligent animals. They're a very basic psychology

[ice grillin you]

They are all wonderful until they aren't. 

[MDS]

pits are awful dogs and nobody should own them

the end