On March 23 at 7 pm, my neighbors dog pulled my puppy under the fence and tore him up. My puppy, Mister Leo Toupe, wound up with 14 stitches in 4 places and a broken shoulder blade. The police and animal control are involved but say that they cannot make them pay for the bills. I feel my neighbors should and everyone keeps telling me to take them to small claims? Is it worth it or will the judge say the same thing... they're not responsible?

The hardest part for me is to see how cold these people are. Never once came to see if Leo was OK, never apologized (I know they don't have to but come on). If it was the other way around, I would have been calling their vet or pet ER giving them my Credit Card and telling them to charge whatever it takes.

Thank you.

Just to let you know, I have NO legal experience what so ever, but who's fence is it? Were both dogs in their own yards?

My fence, both dogs in their own yard. The way Mister Leo was ripped open and where his shoulder was broke, you can tell his was pulled under the fence. They had on their side of the fence t the bottom, one of those crisscross fences (I can't spell the word sorry- the start with a L) anyway, that fence sliced his stomach in 2 place. 1 under his armpit (broken shoulder blade arm - 6 stitches, plus some under the skin) and the other on (almost through) his abdomen (4 stitches). Then on his backside you have puncture wounds from their dogs teeth. Upper right leg (2 stitches) lower left leg (2 or 3 stitches).

The neighbors son was outside when I heard my puppy screaming and he crawled over to us.He said nothing to me. The woman told the cops she heard everything. Her husband said they saw everything (he wasn't home). I took photos and you can also see that their dog was digging and you could see where the accident happened because Leos little paws were smeared all over their fence.

... one of those crisscross fences (I can't spell the word sorry- the start with a L) anyway, ..

Woud it be "lattice" perhaps? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Wallpaper_group-pmm-1.jpg/220px-

It will be a close case if you take it to court. You should have

made a fence which their dog couldn't get through.
more carefully watched your pup.

They should have


not had a viscious dog,
and stopped the dog immediately when it attacked your pup.


It will be a judgment call.

Thanks. And yes - it is lattice.

Our fence rises in certain areas in the yard and so we board them up . Their dog always fence fights which knocks over our boards. It was like that when we bought the house. After what happened, we are planning to put lattice around our side of the fence so he can't get out at all.

Close case meaning - a waste of my time? I think, if anything, they could pay something.

Seriously, if it was the other way around, no questions asked.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on the subject.

If it were me I'd take it to small claims court. The fact is, your dog was in a fenced back yard, and their dog pulled him to his side of the fence and injured him.

Take pictures of the fence, where the incident occurred, where their dog has been digging, and make sure you have all the medical bills, and pictures of your dog after he was injured. Your vets testimony (a notarized letter), stating the extent of the injuries, and his/her opinion on what caused that injury, will help.

Bottom line. Your dog didn't deserve this, and they're dog is responsible for the injuries that occurred. As the owners of their dog they are responsible to pay for any injuries that dog causes.

If you have a police report then take that to court too.

Small claims court isn't too costly, so even if you lose, you won't be out very much, but I personally think you have a very strong case. But then, I'm not a legal expert. I have however had friends that had similar things happen, and they won in small claims.

I don't think it would be a waste of time, win or lose.

If it were me I'd take it to small claims court. The fact is, your dog was in a fenced back yard, and their dog pulled him to his side of the fence and injured him.

Take pictures of the fence, where the incident occurred, where their dog has been digging, and make sure you have all the medical bills, and pictures of your dog after he was injured. Your vets testimony (a notarized letter), stating the extent of the injuries, and his/her opinion on what caused that injury, will help.

Bottom line. Your dog didn't deserve this, and they're dog is responsible for the injuries that occurred. As the owners of their dog they are responsible to pay for any injuries that dog causes.

If you have a police report then take that to court too.

Small claims court isn't too costly, so even if you lose, you won't be out very much, but I personally think you have a very strong case. But then, I'm not a legal expert. I have however had friends that had similar things happen, and they won in small claims.

I don't think it would be a waste of time, win or lose.

Thank you! Before and after photos.

Was a day away from 4 month and weighed 5 1/2 pounds.

was a day away from 4 month and weighed 5 1/2 pounds.

OMG! That poor baby.

I have to ask, and I hope that I'm not opening even more wounds. It was your use of the past tense "was a day away from 4 month", that made me gasp. Did he make it?

OMG! That poor baby.

I have to ask, and I hope that I'm not opening even more wounds. It was your use of the past tense "was a day away from 4 month", that made me gasp. Did he make it?

He is doing good but we have to have him locked up most of the day so he doesn't keep hurting his shoulder. Because of where he had to have stitches they couldn't brace is arm (they tried but it got infected). That has to be one of the hardest things for us, is keeping him locked up...

I should have said.. "At the time of the accident" It just happened March of this year.

I'm so very sorry, and I truly hope that you take this to small claims. I have to state again that I'm not a legal expert, and I doubt that any legal expert can tell you what the outcome will be, but I do think it's worth pursuing.

Please let us know the outcome, and give an extra hug to your little baby from me. I'm glad that he survived this. That's the most important thing in the end. :)

... Close case meaning - a waste of my time? I think, if anything, they could pay something. ...

No. By close, I mean the liablity is uncertain. I don't know if the judge will find they are liable or not. But it's all or nothing. If the court rules that they are liable, and that your negligence didn't contribute to the pup's injuries, you would be awarded all of your expenses.

However, in some jurisdictions, contributory negligence may prevent you from getting a judgment in your favor. In others, comparative negligence may reduce your recovery in proportion to the percentage you are found to be at fault.

No. By close, I mean the liablity is uncertain. I don't know if the judge will find they are liable or not. But it's all or nothing. If the court rules that they are liable, and that your negligence didn't contribute to the pup's injuries, you would be awarded all of your expenses.

However, in some jurisdictions, contributory negligence may prevent you from getting a judgment in your favor. In others, comparative negligence may reduce your recovery in proportion to the percentage you are found to be at fault.

AK, I'm not trying to rock the boat, I'm just curious, and I also want to know if I missed something.

I don't understand how any judge wouldn't see the negligence of the neighbor. Both dogs were in their own fenced yards. There's lattice on the bottom of the fence to fill the gaps. The OP's dog was dragged under the fence by the neighbors dog. The OP's dog suffered severe injury as a result of this.

I realize that it depends on the judge, but I don't see how the OP is negligent, or how any judge could find the OP at fault for anything other then letting her dog into her fenced yard, assuming he'd be safe. The injuries are entirely the result of the OP's dog being dragged under the fence by the neighbors dog. Is that not enough? And if not, then why? How could the OP be found negligent.

I'm just curious because that scenario makes no sense to me at all. Could you explain?

First of course the police and animal control can not make them pay, since that is not their job.

But where I see the issue is that the fence must have had obvious places where the dog could get though, how did the one dog get thought the fence to grab the other dog to drag him though, or was the injured dog partially though the fence to be able to be grabbed.
If the injured dog partially went onto the other side, to be able to be grabbed, I would have a hard time finding fault there myself.

For example if my cat stuck its head in the fence and my neighbors pit bull got it, my cat crossed the property line.

AK, I'm not trying to rock the boat, I'm just curious, and I also want to know if I missed something.
...
but I don't see how the OP is negligent, or how any judge could find the OP at fault for anything other then letting her dog into her fenced yard, assuming he'd be safe. ...

You said it: "assuming he'd be safe". Obviously he wasn't safe. He was injured. So that assumption was incorrect, wasn't it?

Additionally, the fence, which belongs to the OP I understand, failed to keep the other dog from attacking OP's dog.

As I say, it's a close case. But these factors could, I suppose, be considered negligent by the judge.

Another thing to understand: they are not people, they are dogs. From a legal viewpoint, normal considerations of acceptable behavior don't apply to animals. Instead, it's a matter of determining whether the people were being reasonable in predicting the behavior of the animals.

It shouldn't make a difference.. but I know it does.

Their dog was digging under the fence to get at our dogs. My oldest dog is 80 pounds and my youngest is 5 1/2. He stuck his head under and pulled him through. Their dog is about 65 -75 pounds.

Chuck, I do understand that, and I agree, but, I saw a case a while back (yes, it was Judge Judy, so not necessarily a reliable judicial source) where a dog got it's paw stuck in the fence. The neighbors two dogs literally ripped the plaintiffs dogs leg right off. Now, the plaintiffs dog was obviously digging, got it's paw stuck. But, the defendants had to pay, even though the judge (Judy) said that she really didn't believe that the defendants dogs were violent. To her it was an animal reacting to another animals predicament. In the wild there would have been two options for the stuck dog. Stay stuck and die of starvation, or get you unstuck by ripping off your leg, and give you at least a snowballs chance in hell to survive. Still, despite all of that, and despite the fact that the plaintiffs dog was partially to blame, since the plaintiffs dog was the only one injured, and the defendants dogs were the cause of the injury, the defendants had to pay.

Last year our dog Chewy dug under our fence (despite many barriers we've put up to prevent this), and got into our neighbors yard. While in our neighbors yard he dug in their flower garden. We paid for the ruined flowers, and paid to repair the fence, because our dog caused the damage, even though the fence is on the property line, and not only our responsibility to maintain.

I guess I'm just being emotional about this. I just don't understand how the neighbor isn't 100% responsible, even if the OP's puppy met the neighbors dog half way, their dog still did the damage. The neighbors dog is not hurt. Shouldn't they have to pay for the injuries their dog caused?

You said it: "assuming he'd be safe". Obviously he wasn't safe. He was injured. So that assumption was incorrect, wasn't it?

Additionally, the fence, which belongs to the OP I understand, failed to keep the other dog from attacking OP's dog.

As I say, it's a close case. But these factors could, I suppose, be considered negligent by the judge.

Another thing to understand: they are not people, they are dogs. From a legal viewpoint, normal considerations of acceptable behavior don't apply to animals. Instead, it's a matter of determining whether the people were being reasonable in predicting the behavior of the animals.

I do understand and agree with what you're posting. But, there is a but. ;)

Yes the fence is on the OP's property, but she did all she could (lattice under the fence) to prevent her dog from getting out of her yard. From what the OP wrote it was the neighbors dog that dug under the fence. As a dog owner, and an owner of a digger, I know that the only way to totally secure your dog is to dig around 5 feet under the fence and cement it. Not very realistic. Or leash your dog even when it's in an enclosed yard.

I guess the only question I have left is whether the OP has a chance at winning in small claims court, and if she does, will the options I gave her help? What will it take, or does it all depend on the judge?

Again, not trying to rock the boat, but to me this was a clear and cut case. If I were the judge, I'd be awarding the OP her damages.

...
I guess I'm just being emotional about this. I just don't understand how the neighbor isn't 100% responsible, even if the OP's puppy met the neighbors dog half way, their dog still did the damage. The neighbors dog is not hurt. Shouldn't they have to pay for the injuries their dog caused?

Consider what I wrote a few minutes ago about the difference between human liability and dog behavior.

The law doesn't apply human ideas of morality to animals. The owner of the aggressive dog is not strictly liable for the harm caused by his or her animal. There are circumstances under which a defendant can be "strictly liable" (liability without any sort of fault). But I don't think that applies here.

It's not what we call an intentional tort (assuming they didn't intend for their dog to cause the injury). It is a matter of negligence. And negligence turns not on the moral culpability of the animal (In a philosophical sense, animals are amoral.), but rather upon the reasonableness of the animal's owner.

[/QUOTE]
Last year our dog Chewy dug under our fence (despite many barriers we've put up to prevent this), and got into our neighbors yard. While in our neighbors yard he dug in their flower garden. We paid for the ruined flowers, and paid to repair the fence, because our dog caused the damage, even though the fence is on the property line, and not only our responsibility to maintain.

[/QUOTE]


I feel the same way!! I even said that to the guy next door.

Yes the fence is on the OP's property, but she did all she could (lattice under the fence) to prevent her dog from getting out of her yard.

The lattice is on their side of the fence. Their dog dug under it.

The lattice is on their side of the fence. Their dog dug under it.

So they put up the lattice? To me that's further proof that this is their responsibility. As the owner of a beagle/digger, I've taken precautions to keep him in our yard. He still manages to bypass those precautions, but when he gets out he doesn't hurt anyone, he just digs. But, the fact that the neighbor put up the lattice on their side of the fence just screams "I know my dog digs, I know it's an issue". To me (not a legal expert), that's another reason why I would take this to small claims. It's basically them admitting that their dog digging is an issue. This time the digging lead to injury of your dog.

Again... I have to say... I'm not a legal expert. I just think that you could and should win if you take this to small claims. I don't know if you will, and I don't understand why you wouldn't, but if it were me, I'd go for it. :)

Maybe we're approaching this the wrong way, or I'm totally out of my mind. ;)

I think the question we should be asking is what it's worth to the OP (original poster) to pursue this?

How much does it cost to file a claim in small claims where she lives? How much are the damages? If she loses in court, can she afford the cost to file a claim? If she loses, will it be worth trying to get back her expenses?

Bottom line, are any of us 100% sure that she'll lose? I'm not, but again, I'm not a legal expert.

Quote
How much does it cost to file a claim in small claims where she lives? How much are the damages? If she loses in court, can she afford the cost to file a claim? If she loses, will it be worth trying to get back her expenses? Quote

I'm not sure the price of filing because I'm waiting for all of his medical to be done. He will get his stitches out Saturday and will also be looked over. I'm sure he will have to be back in another 2 weeks because they wanted us to keep him locked up for 1 month. (So his shoulder will heal)

I am planning on it no matter what. I just want to make sure I have all the bills to take with me. Also, want it to surprise the hell out of them.

My sister thinks I shouldn't do it , so I won't be "that neighbor" but they are that neighbor and I say @$@% them. I probably wouldn't have been so offended if they would have just checked to see how he was or said they were sorry... but nothing. I know they don't have to but what kind of people are that cold. I call them robots but I think robots have more feelings then they do.

Thank you everyone for writing me back and giving me your advice. All I can do is hope the judge is an animal lover :-) and when they see Mister Leo Toupe's before and after photos they will want them bastards to pay as well.

All I can do is hope the judge is an animal lover :-) and when they see Mister Leo Toupe's before and after photos they will want them bastards to pay as well.

Getting an animal lover for a judge is not enough. To win a lawsuit, even in small claims court, you need to show negligence on the part of the defendant. And you need proof of that negligence.

You need to show they knew their dog would attack another dog, they knew their dog was digging under the fence and they saw their dog attack yours and did nothing. Unless you can prove those things, the judge may have no other choice but to dismiss your case.

And even if you DO win, you need to collect. The court does not collect for you. If they refuse to pay, you have to find where they work and garnish their salary or where they bank and attach their bank account.

I still think your best bet would be to file a claim with their homeowner's carrier first.

25 years ago a neighbor's cat caught a fishhook in her mouth from a pole on my back porch (not easy, since it was way at the top and secure). My homeowner's paid some $ after a deductible, not the vet bill, because I was told that the cat was 'property' in the eyes of insurance companies.
I too agree that the neighbors may very well just refuse to pay any judgment against them. Small Claims judges don't spend a lot of time on he said she said and are often arbitrary and quick, so I think any predictions here are tough calls to make.
I would follow through on both avenues, even if the results are discouraging.

...
I still think your best bet would be to file a claim with their homeowner's carrier first.

But, unlike an autombile accident, there is no way to make them disclose the identity of their homeowner's (or renter's) insurance carrier.

But, unlike an autombile accident, there is no way to make them disclose the identity of their homeowner's (or renter's) insurance carrier.

Some counties include that with deed information. But it might require a suit to get it.

I would have to agree, I think with pictures and any reports you have your case is quite strong. It is your neighbor's responsibility that his dog does not damage anyone else's property and I think in this case it would be difficult to suggest that you were in any way negligent as your dog was confined to your property. If I saw this one on Judge Judy I think she would go with you.

I would have to agree, I think with pictures and any reports you have your case is quite strong. It is your neighbor's responsibility that his dog does not damage anyone else's property and I think in this case it would be difficult to suggest that you were in any way negligent as your dog was confined to your property. If I saw this one on Judge Judy I think she would go with you.

Judge Judy is TV law, not real law. Judy is more of a mediator than a Judge. While I would agree, the OP does not appear to have been negligent, its not her negligence that is at issue. She needs to prove the neighbors were negligent and that is not as easy as you seem to think it is.

Yes, if this were brought before Judge Judy she'd probably win, but in a REAL court of law, its not that strong a case.

Some counties include that with deed information. But it might require a suit to get it.

Interesting. SCOTUS is currently considering whether the feds can require one to purchase health insurance. Do these counties require folks to purchase homeowners' insurance?

Interesting. SCOTUS is currently considering whether the feds can require one to purchase health insurance. Do these counties require folks to purchase homeowners' insurance?

No, but I've never seen a mortgage company that doesn't require it.

We have homeowners insurance and we had to have it. I'm not sure if they own or rent their house.

I honestly never thought of going after their insurance company. I bet if I asked them that it might scare them into thinking their insurance would go up for them having a dog like that.

We have homeowners insurance and we had to have it. I'm not sure if they own or rent their house.

I honestly never thought of going after their insurance company. I bet if I asked them that it might scare them into thinking their insurance would go up for them having a dog like that.

If they rent they may have renter's insurance. If they renter, then the lanlrod's policy may cover.

I would definitely ask them for their insurance carrier.

...
I honestly never thought of going after their insurance company. I bet if I asked them that it might scare them into thinking their insurance would go up for them having a dog like that.

That's why, if I were them, I would refuse to tell you whether they have insurance, and who the insurance carrier might be.

Back to the issue of the county having the insurance information: I still can't see how they could keep track of that info. It's none of their business. But they would have record (if they handle the title recording function; most do) of who holds the mortgage. So contact the mortgage company for the insurance info. Next question, would they disclose that info. Doubt it. They aren't liable, but they might view it as confidential.

You need to show they knew their dog would attack another dog, they knew their dog was digging under the fence

Scott, again, I don't want to rock the boat, and I'm not a legal expert, but I have to ask, because your above statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

How can you prove that they knew their dog was going to attack another dog? Just the sheer fact that it's a dog should be proof enough. You can't prove intention. Or am I way off base here? Does a dog have to have a past history of attack before it's held accountable for other attacks?

Also, as for knowing their dog was digging under the fence, doesn't the fact that they put up lattice on their side of the fence, prove that they knew he was a digger?

Just confused here. All dogs have the capacity to attack. It's in their nature, I know this, and I'm a dog lover! I don't understand why, or how, you could, or should have to, prove that the owners knew that their dog could attack. Just the fact that they own a dog should be proof enough, at least for me. Even a little teacup poodle can attack. My cousin lost a finger to my Aunt's dog. That dog weighed 1 pound soaking wet. All dogs have the capacity and the instinct to attack, under the right, or wrong, circumstances.


they saw their dog attack yours and did nothing.

I'm confused about this part too. Does that mean that if my neighbors dog attacks my dog, and I see it, but they don't, then they're not negligent? What if they're not home? Does that mean their dog can do whatever it wants, can dig under my fence, attack my dog, and because they didn't see it and stop it, I have to pay?

I realize that the law is stupid in many aspects, but I have to question why the OP has to jump through so many hoops when it's obvious, based on what she's written here, that the neighbors dog is at fault for these injuries. At least to me it is.

I'd just like an explanation, because none of this makes sense to me.

...Just confused here. All dogs have the capacity to attack. It's in their nature, I know this, and I'm a dog lover! I don't understand why, or how, you could, or should have to, prove that the owners knew that their dog could attack. ....

Any human will attack too, under the right circumstances. But the issue is whether they knew that this dog was reasonably likely to make an (apparently) unprovoked attack upon another dog in a neighboring yard, under a fence. In other words, was it reasonable for them to leave the dog unsupervised, and not in a pen or on a chain. That's the fact question that's for a jury (or judge in small claims court) to decide.


... I'm confused about this part too. Does that mean that if my neighbors dog attacks my dog, and I see it, but they don't, then they're not negligent? What if they're not home? Does that mean their dog can do whatever it wants, can dig under my fence, attack my dog, and because they didn't see it and stop it, I have to pay? ....

Again, if they had reasonable cause to believe that the dog might have caused damage, they should have kept it in the house, or otherwise confined when they were gone.

based on what she's written here, that the neighbors dog is at fault for these injuries. .

And I agree, the DOG is at fault here. But a court of law has to decide whether the owners are at fault. Suing the dog is not going to get anywhere.

The basis of civil actions are torts. A tort is a civil wrong recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. There are 3 broad categories of torts, two of which concern us with this case; intentional and negligent. As you might expect an intentional tort occurs by direct and willful action of someone that results in damage to the injured party. A negligent tort occurs when someone's actions were unreasonable unsafe.
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort)

So to win a lawsuit here the OP has to prove that the neighbors did something deliberately that caused damage to her pet or that the neighbors were negligent in not preventing it from happening. If we didn't have this requirement of proving a tort, the court system would be even more overtaxed than it already is.

[Quote=alty]Does a dog have to have a past history of attack before the owner is held legally accountable for other attacks?[quote]

I altered your question above slightly (see bolded part). The answer to that question would be yes.

Putting up the lattice might be and indication, but its not a slam dunk. Actually most lattice fencing is decorative rather than protective. So I'm not sure it would count.

If anyone's dog was to attack because the dog was allowed to roam free, then there could be an issue of negligence there.


You're right. Sometimes the law doesn't make sense. And don't confuse justice and the law. The law is supposed to provide justice but that doesn't always happen. Is it justice for the OP to have to pay for damages done to her pet by the neighbors? No, I don't think so. But did the neighbors act illegally here? I'm afraid there isn't enough for me to say they did. So I'm just not sure the OP could win a lawsuit here.

Thank you AK and Scott. I do understand what you're saying, and I now better understand why you think the OP may have a hard time with this case.

I still don't think it's fair, since her dog was injured because of the neighbors dog. Also, if it were me, I'd still try small claims on the off chance that she could win, which I think she should. But then, I'm not aware of how much it costs to file a claim in small claims. To me it would be worth it just so that the neighbors would know that they can't just ignore the things their property "and sadly a dog is property" does. I wouldn't care if I got a single cent, and I get the feeling that the OP feels the same way, that she just wants them to acknowledge her dogs injuries and their suffering.

But I do understand that the law isn't always fair, and it doesn't always make sense.

It just makes me sad, and mad. This little pup did nothing wrong other than be in his own yard.

One last question, just because this does intrigue and disturb me. Does the fact that the little dog that was pulled under the fence suffered from multiple stitches, pictures to prove it, and the fact that the neighbors dog was unharmed, add any "punch" to this case?

Sorry to keep asking questions. I just really need to understand why this is the way it is. I'm not questioning your answers. You're the legal experts, and I trust your expertise. It's just that to me, it's not only a stupid law, but an unrealistic one. I can't find one scenario where dog meets dog and a fight ensues, that would be provable in court based on the criteria that needs to be met. So why have any dog laws at all? Why not just let them go around biting, killing, maiming, destroying, with no consequences?

I agree, she should pursue the case in small claims court. Small Claims courts are often more about justice than letter of the law. Small claims courts are sometimes not run by judges but by lawyers. They are often less formal about rules of evidence, etc.

I'm just trying to point out that its not a slam dunk case and it could go against her.

And this is not an issue of dog laws. The tort laws apply ANYWHERE someone is damaged. Lets say, for example, that your neighbor walks up your walkway, and trips on a paving stone that just slightly is uneven. And it just became uneven because of a minor earth tremor a couple of days ago. Did you deliberately place the stone so someone would trip on it? Was it unreasonable that you didn't notice the stone was slightly out of alignment? Is it reasonable for someone to expect you to check the alignment every day in case one pops up? On the other hand, if your mailperson had pointed the stone out to you last week and you hadn't fixed it, then you could be considered negligent.

This is the SAME situation. Your neighbor was damaged through no fault of your own. Should you be penalized because of it? The tort laws are there to protect people from being held legally liable for things that happen through no fault of their own.

I think what is coloring most respondents opinions here is the apparent cavalier attitude of the neighbors. They are being portrayed as the bad guys here (and maybe they are) but maybe they aren't.

I'm cutting to the chase - I work on cases like this. In my State homeowner's is not going to cover damage/injury to another animal. As a homework assignment, call your HO company and ask about this same situation. I think I know the answer.

My next concern is that OP posted that he KNEW the other dog was "fence fighting" which raises HIS level of responsibility.

I have dogs. I'm sympathetic to the cause but I see a lot of emotion here and not a lot of law. Would I have a lattice fence with landscape timbers at the base and netting or webbing nailed to the lattice work for its entire length and height? Yes - and for a period, I did.

I don't use fencing - and I have very big dogs - which they can even get a PAW through? Yes, it's expensive but I am protecting them, the dog next door - and ultimately, me. I am as concerned that the dog next door is going to poke his head through and find my dogs pulling him the rest of the way as I am that they will just grab a dog and pull it through. They're dogs. They have no idea that dogs don't fit through the opening in lattice fences. Have I ever had a problem? No. Why? Maybe because I'm super vigilant.

Would I be upset? Yes, you bet. Do the photos make me sick and my blood boil? Yes. Legally - another story.

Would I go to Small Claims Court? Sure. It takes very little money and a couple of hours. Would I be prepared to lose? Yes.

I think this is an emotional question with emotional answers AND the law is not the same all over.

Judge Judy is good TV, she sells. She isn't always legally correct and, in addition to that, isn't always in the State where "you" are. That's like arguing with your Physician that he/she should do this or that because the same condition was on House and HE cured the patient in 60 minutes (minus commercials).

And concerning getting info on the HO insurance - you write a letter and ask that the matter be turned over to the insurance company. You then either negotiate with the company OR sue the individual. That brings the insurance info out of the woodwork (so to speak).

That's shocking Take them to Court no matter what!! Your poor puppy!! I tell if I was rich and had money I would pay for the courts costs myself and get them charged. Their dog should be put down I think, I really hope you dog recovers soon.

Andrew Macintosh

Thats shocking Take them to Court no matter what!!!!! Your poor puppy!!!!! I tell if I was rich and had money I would pay for the courts costs myself and get them charged. Their dog should be put down I think,. I really hope you dog recovers soon.

Andrew Macintosh


This is a legal board, not a "feelings" board, not a "if I were rich" board. The LEGAL advice is that this dog is property, same as a table. I don't like it, you don't like it, pretty much nobody likes it - but that's the law.

You are confusing suing for damages and getting somebody charged - they are very different things. If you were rich, what would you attempt to get them charged with?

So - you would sacrifice one dog for another, am I understanding you, even though the OP KNEW that her dog could poke its face through the fence and did nothing and the other dog is simply that, a dog? Dogs aren't Charles Manson. They don't have evil intent. They're dogs.

Bad advice.