Mobtown's signature pet, urbanite's fave accessory, ruled a dangerous breed

[CountDeMoney]

All pit bulls to be considered dangerous under court ruling
Previously, victims had to show dogs owners knew dogs had violent history

Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, the state's highest court has ruled, a decision that could lead to stiff penalties for people found responsible in attacks — even if the dogs have never been violent before.

A decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, issued this week, distinguishes pit bulls and mixed breeds from other kinds of dogs. In the past, a victim intending to file a lawsuit after a dog attack had to prove that a dog's owner knew it had a history of being dangerous. Now, showing that the owner or landlord knew a dog is part pit bull would be sufficient for a claim.

"It is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous," the court ruled Thursday.

The case stems from a 2007 attack on a child in Towson that led several local governments to reconsider the laws governing pit bulls. The animals are banned in Prince George's County.

But some who oppose the ruling argue that a dog's breed is not a reliable way to predict whether the animal might become violent. They worry that the decision will make it more difficult for pit bull owners to find housing, and discourage others from adopting the dogs.

In a dissenting opinion, one justice said the decision establishes a troublesome precedent.

"Now, it appears, the issue of whether a dog is harmless, or the owner or landlord has any reason to know that the dog is dangerous, is irrelevant to the standard of strict liability," wrote Judge Clayton Greene Jr.

The decision is in response to a Baltimore County Circuit Court decision in the case of 10-year-old Dominic Solesky, who was attacked by a neighbor's pit bill in 2007.

After the attack, Dominic's family sued the dog owner's landlord, Dorothy M. Tracey. The Circuit Court judge threw out the claim, ruling there was no evidence that Tracey had been negligent.

The Court of Special Appeals overturned the judge's decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling Thursday. The case will now head back to trial.

Pauline Houliaras, president of B-More Dog, which formed in 2007 to fight anti-pit bull legislation in Baltimore County, said the group is "extremely disappointed" with the court's decision.

"This will not make a community safer," said Houliaras, who is also a certified professional dog trainer and behavior consultant.

Instead, she said, the ruling will lead to discrimination against pit bull owners and will discourage landlords from renting to all kinds of dog owners across the state because dog breeds are often misidentified.

"You can't identify breed based on appearance," she said.

Kevin A. Dunne, attorney for the Solesky family, said Friday that "the Court of Appeals decision will likely cause there to be fewer pit bull maulings of the citizens of the state of Maryland."

Dunne said the high court's decision "didn't say pit bulls are banned. It makes the owner of the dog financially responsible for the injuries caused. It affects you if your dog hurts somebody else."

But Houliaras said she fears the ruling will prompt shelters to re-evaluate their adoption policies, possibly restricting pit bull breed adoptions, as well as causing more owners to relinquish their pets, and potentially causing higher euthanization rates of pit bulls and pit bull mixes.

"We agree that dog owners should be held liable for injuries caused when their dogs bite people, but this should be regardless of the breed," she said.

Fallout from pit bull ruling; concerns rise among dog owners, property owners
Animal advocates say breed-specific ruling is unfair

Erica Carter's move from Pasadena to Baltimore was difficult, she said, not because of the lack of housing options, but because many places would not allow her pit bull Bailey.

Though Carter has settled into a rental near Patterson Park, she said the search was daunting. And she fears it will only get worse with her next move after last week's Maryland Court of Appeals ruling that pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals.

The court's decision could have far-reaching implications for landlords and dog owners who rent. Landlords could opt to ban pit bulls or all dogs to avoid future liability, or they could see increased insurance costs, industry experts said. In turn, as pit bull owners have difficulty finding housing, animal advocates fear more dogs will be left at shelters.

The ruling — in a civil case brought by the family of a child attacked by a pit bull in Towson in 2007 — means victims don't need to prove a dog's owner knew it had a history of being dangerous. They just need to show that the owner or landlord knew a dog is part pit bull to make a claim.

"That's absolutely ridiculous," Carter, 20, said as she watched Bailey trot happily through the mud with a pack of other dogs at the Canton Dog Park. "Pit bulls get judged by their look and the actions of other people," she said, referring to owners who train pit bulls to fight.

Howard Carolan, 28, who brought his pit-mix Annie to the park, was surprised by the ruling. He said he and his fiancee recently rescued Annie. "That's got to be half the dogs in the city," he said of pit mixes.

"We just got this girl. She's been sweet," he said. He added, however, that the ruling "does concern me about keeping her."

Carter said she would never give up her dog. "I plan on adopting more," she said.

But many are concerned about the ruling's impact on pit bull ownership.

"We're getting calls from people who are getting calls from their landlords telling them to move out," said Jen Swanson, executive director at the Baltimore Humane Society in Reisterstown.

She said the humane society has been advising callers that leases are legally binding contracts and landlords can't change them until the lease ends. "Landlords can stipulate what they want in a lease, but what's unfortunate now is this is really breeding fear and ignorance," she said.

The ruling also is causing concern among landlords and property managers.

M. Arnold Politzer, a commercial and residential real estate lawyer, said the ruling puts landlords who have leases that permit pit bulls in a difficult position.

"If you have a contract that says pit bulls are OK, you're looking at a breach of contract" if a property owner tries to force tenants to get rid of dogs before the lease is up, he said.

But Robert H. Lande, a University of Baltimore law professor, said a landlord's options depend on the terms of the lease.

"You have to look at the lease and see if there is any general clause that says you can't do anything dangerous," he said, which could be considered enough to allow a landlord to require a tenant to remove a pit bull.

Some said the ruling could lead property owners to not only prohibit pit bulls but all dogs.

"As a landlord, I have no idea of the breed," said Benedict Frederick III, president of the Property Owners Association of Greater Baltimore. He said that for years, he has prohibited dogs because his liability insurance policy won't permit them.

A fellow association board member, Jacob Danyali, said he also has opted to exclude all pet owners from his properties because of the potential destruction of property. But he said the ruling seems unfair to landlords.

"It's like saying the car company is responsible for a drunk driver," he said. He predicted that the market would be driven by the cost of insurance — if insurance becomes too expensive, many landlords won't accept pit bulls.

Anne Binary, an animal law expert, said one of the consequences of this ruling is that "insurance companies will cancel insurance policies and raise policy costs. ... Anybody who carries an insurance policy will be discouraged economically from adopting these dogs."

Many animal advocacy groups have reacted to the ruling by starting online campaigns, including a Facebook page called "Stop Pit Bull Discrimination in Maryland," which had garnered more 1,300 "Likes" by Tuesday. A petition also is circulating, asking Gov. Martin O'Malley to prohibit policy that singles out specific breeds.

Eileen Gabby, executive director of the Maryland SPCA, said the group is looking at their options. "We hope the case can be reconsidered," she said.

"People are concerned," she added. "We want both pets and people to be safe."

[11B4V]

Serves them right.

[Eddie Teach]

The case stems from a 2007 attack on a child

Shocker. Those things are pretty aggressive, and generally too weak to back it up.

[grumbler]

Pit bulls, as a breed, need to disappear now that the need for them for use in warfare has passed.  The argument that one cannot justify banning pit bulls that have not yet exhibited violent tendencies is unpersuasive; it is like arguing that having children play with unexploded hand grenades is okay, because those grenades have never exploded.

[CountDeMoney]

Shame urban/hip-hop/gangsta/prison culture didn't identify with Westie Terriers as part of their accoutrements.  Bumping Westies would be a blast.

[Razgovory]

I wouldn't think an urban area would be a good place for such a large dog.

[Maximus]

I wouldn't think an urban area would be a good place for a dog.

fixed

[Razgovory]

Never lived in a major metropolitan area.

[Eddie Teach]

The case stems from a 2007 attack on a child

Shocker. Those things are pretty aggressive, and generally too weak to back it up.

C'mon guys. "Pit bulls aren't that friendly, either." Disappointing.

[jimmy olsen]

The case stems from a 2007 attack on a child

Shocker. Those things are pretty aggressive, and generally too weak to back it up.

C'mon guys. "Pit bulls aren't that friendly, either." Disappointing.

I laughed, but I didn't feel it needed a response.

[Tonitrus]

The obvious solution is to replace pit bulls with chihuahuas in urban pet-owning fashion.

[KRonn]

I fear and don't like pit bulls (and rot weilers for that matter), but is there any substantiated or scientific evidence that any breed is inherently more dangerous than another? Aside from the obvious that a larger dog breed can inflict more harm than a smaller one.

[grumbler]

I fear and don't like pit bulls (and rot weilers for that matter), but is there any substantiated or scientific evidence that any breed is inherently more dangerous than another? 

Yes.

[Josquius]

Pit bulls used to be known as nanny dogs. They were considered very safe and frequently kept with babies.
It is generally more the upbringing. Though probally there are some modern strains that have had some nastyness bred it. Shame to damn the whole breed for it though; but then that raises the question of how do you tell which is a good sort and which is a bad sort.

[Razgovory]

I fear and don't like pit bulls (and rot weilers for that matter), but is there any substantiated or scientific evidence that any breed is inherently more dangerous than another? Aside from the obvious that a larger dog breed can inflict more harm than a smaller one.

Yeah.  Something like a third of all fatalities caused by dogs in the US are done by Pit bulls (or pit bull type dogs).  The second is rottweilers.  I'm sure many people have these dogs without any problems, but they do have a higher tendency to cause severe harm then other breeds of dogs.