Friday, August 10, 2012
Kevin Dunne, the lawyer for the Solesky family, shares his thoughts on legislation taken up by Maryland's General Assembly that would overturn much of his client's verdict.
- OPINION
-
Friday, August 10, 2012
As a Maryland attorney for the last 32 years, my practice has largely focused on cases dealing with catastrophic injuries. That practice is driven by what I would hope to be an uncontroversial belief: namely, that the cost of an injury should be borne by the person who caused it, rather than by the victim. As a result, and specifically as a result of my representation of a ten-year-old boy who was brutally mauled by a neighbor’s pit bull dog, I have recently been thrust into a heated and, at times, toxic public debate concerning the dangerousness of certain breeds of dogs. This debate has been particularly frustrating for two reasons. First, it is a debate in which the two sides do not actually disagree about the important parts. Second, …
A bill that would overturn the state's Court of Appeals decision declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous" overcame its first hurdle Thursday by passing a Senate committee hearing 6-3.
Maryland's Senate Judicial Services Committee voted 6-3 in favor of a bill that would overturn the state's Court of Appeals decision declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous." Senators Norman Stone (D-District 6), Joseph Getty (R-District 5) and Nancy Jacobs (R- District 34) made up the minority. Despite more than two hours of testimony before the committee, Senate Bill 2 passed without amendment. The legislation would overturn the breed distinction created by April's Tracey v. Solesky ruling, which stated that "when an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous." Instead, the bill's language tightens down regulations on all dog owners by making them legally …
Dozens of people brought signs and pictures of their pit bulls to Lawyer's Square in an effort to let legislators know that they want to see an end to breed specific legislation.
People from across Maryland gathered in support of pit bulls at Lawyer's Mall in Annapolis on Thursday. "The idea that our dogs should be held to a different standard because they have square heads and short hairs is poppycock," Kallie Russell said. She and her husband own two pit bulls. They also own their own home, which means April's Maryland Court of Appeals decision that made landlords liable for the attacks by their tenants' dogs doesn't affect them. "It's a slippery slope. We could be renters in the future," Russell said. "It will end up affecting every single dog owner because no one is going to send someone out to try and figure out what kind of dog you have." On this point there seems to be general consensus among …
Friday, May 4, 2012
The judiciary's opinion that pit bulls are violent should go through the legislature, says U.S. Humane Society.
The Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling declaring pit bulls inherently dangerous and holding their owners liable in the event of attack is opposed by the Humane Society, regional rescue groups and state lawmakers. “We believe that the court overstepped its authority,” said Betsy McFarland of the Humane Society of the United States. The court ruled last week that in a 2007 pit bull attack on a boy in Towson, the owner was liable on the grounds that pit bulls and pit bull mixes are inherently dangerous. By common law, persons trying to file suit against a dog owner would have to prove the dog in question had a history of violence. Now, if the owner or landlord has knowledge that the dog is pit bull or part pit bull, the owner or landlord is …
Margaret
10:06 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I don't know if they are inheriently dangerous. I think it might be the way the owner raises them. more ›