RSS
Home
Huntington County Up to Tricks
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The Huntington County administration is at it again. This time they are telling the county animal control officers not to do their jobs.
Between July and August, people had been allegedly attacked by a dog near a run park for Huntington University. Adjacent to the running area, lives a faculty member of the university. Each time the dog was reported, animal control did the report, but instead of being able to do their job, the county commissioners have requested them not to follow up.
County Commissioner, Tom Wall, was reported as saying not to follow up, so as not to harm relations between the university and the county. Mr.Helvie, an elected official in the county administration, was stated to have said that Mr. Wall didn't mean to sweep it under the rug, but to wait until more information could be gathered. The question here is, how can more information be gathered if animal control is told not to do anymore follow ups.
At last report, the county administration, university officials, and the dog's owner have been unavailable for comment. The owner's wife, however has denied the allegations of any of the attacks. Commissioner Wall is in the lineup for the 2010 election to replace "Doc" Dillon in the Indiana State Legislature.
One has to wonder why the animal control officer was told not to fulfill their duty. Indiana law states "It is a Class C infraction for an owner to allow a dog to stray from his property unless the dog was under the reasonable control of a person. Ind. Code 15-5-9-13. This could lead to liability on the ground of negligence (negligence per se liability).
The court decisions discuss the various ways that a dog bite victim can bring a claim. It has been held that a dog owner has a duty to keep the dog under reasonable care and control, even if the owner is unaware of any vicious tendencies in the dog. In Indiana, dogs and other domestic animals are presumed not to be dangerous. Even so, "animals are not necessarily entitled to one free bite before their owners are held liable in negligence." Hardsaw v. Courtney (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) 665 NE2d 1143, 1145. Rather:
[M]aintaining a dog in Indiana imposes on a dog owner the duty of reasonable care, even when the dog owner is unaware of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities. Without knowledge of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities, the owner may become liable for damages the dog causes where the owner is otherwise negligent in his manner of 'keeping and control' of the dog. Above all, an owner is bound to know a dog's natural propensities and use reasonable care to prevent injuries which might reasonably be expected from those propensities. The foregoing duties are imposed on the owner of a dog regardless of the dog bite victim's age or status. (Plesha v. Edmonds ex rel. Edmonds (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) 717 NE2d 981, 987.
Violation of the leash law constitutes negligence per se if the violation was a cause of the dog attack. Plesha v. Edmonds, supra. "
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
