If your pit bull attacks someone, don't expect much sympathy in court. An opinion recently released by the Maryland Court of Appeals states that you should have already known the breed was dangerous.
Maryland owners are now facing increased liability in attack cases, following a ruling in Tracey v. Solesky. The case involved a pit bull named Clifford that attacked a minor, causing life-threatening injuries.
"When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous," wrote Judge Dale R. Cathell in the opinion.
Cathell also stated that landlords have the right to prohibit pit bulls or pit bull cross-breeds from their property.
In June 2011, Severna Park resident Charles McConnell Jr. . McConnell reported that the dog was aggressively barking and growling at him.
According to police, during the incident, McConnell pulled out a handgun and shot the animal once. Consequently, the animal ran away and later died from its injuries. According to the police report, McConnell was arrested and charged with discharging a firearm in a residential area and animal cruelty. However, online court records state McConnell was found not guilty in November 2011.
A PDF of the opinion is attached in the media gallery.
The opinion cited a series of cases involving vicious attacks by pit bulls, as well as expert evaluations and national statistics, according to a WBAL TV News report.
Aileen Gabbey, executive director of the Maryland SPCA, claimed the ruling could lead to fewer adoptions of pit bulls, ABC 2 News reported.
Severna Park Patch Editor Leslie Hunt contributed to this story.
Is it fair for the court to designate pit bulls as inherently dangerous? How accountable should dog owners be held in attack cases? Tell us in the comments.
Pits are often acquired for reasons other than companionship and suffer disproportionately from severe abuse, neglect, abandonment, young death (euthanasia and otherwise). Pit mongers say that "pits are wonderful dogs if raised correctly". The results: many/most people BUY pit puppies, which encourages more breeding and results in more homeless, dead pits. Many/most pit owners do not spay/neuter, which results in more pits and pit mixes being produced. Even with free spay/neuter, many pit owners do not care and/or want their dogs to remain intact. Pits fill many pounds, where they die by the ton. Pits remain THE choice of dog fighters. Colby, a "founding father" of the APBT, wrote in his 1936 book "Inasmuch as dog fighting is illegal, as long as these dogs are bred, there will be contests to see who owns the better fighting dog." He wrote the truth. Dog fighting is difficult to prosecute. In order to go undercover, one must own, train, fight and kill dogs. Manyl dogs fights are impossible to stop, as they are spontaniously arranged by neighbors, passersby. No other type of dog is abused in this way. PIt owners show everyday that they 1) fail to care and/or 2) fail to understand their dogs escaping, mauling and killing abilities and instincts. Is this situation acceptable to them? Obviously it is, as they refuse to consider anything to change the situation. What is the goal of the pit mongers?
Empirical evidence is that most dogs that attack are intact. If they truly cared, pit mongers would promote free, mandatory, enforced spaying/ neutering/ microchipping of all pits, pit mixes, all dog aggressive dogs. If a boxer mix is misidentified, no problem, she gets spayed. No responsible CARING pit owner is punished, as his dogs are spays/neuters. If my favorite breed was being abused, suffering and dying in the numbers and ways pits bulls are, I'd want breeding of my breed to be banned.. Pit mongers and dog fighters are the same, they both only care about themselves and their ability to breed and own pit bulls. The unnecessary and preventable suffering of pits themselves and the suffering of the neighbor dogs/animals/ humans who have been maimed or killed by loose pits is perfectly acceptable to them.