http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Dog-owner-coverage-mulled-3541108.php
This link is from today's edition (May 8th) of the Times Union. Schenectady City Council members are contemplating passing a law to require dog owners to be insured. The reason--if the dog harms someone the owner can reimburse the victim for costs incurred due to medical bills. Per the article, the City Attorney proposed the measure.
There are many questions and concerns to sift through and discuss but, the reason for the law, in my opinion, is a good one. It seems to be a step in the right direction that other municipalities may want to consider. When someone's pet attacks, the owner should be held financially responsible. The following link provides a little information regarding dog bite statistics, http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics.php.
There is a "not my fault" syndrome that is ridding people of accountability. It's important to understand that when you own a dog, YOU are responsible for his behavior. It is the owner's job to properly train your pet and keep your pet under YOUR control at all times. For those that do not, they are responsible when their pet hurts someone. It's good to see Schenectady dealing with this issue; they are lucky to have a proactive attorney.
There are a lot of laws I am not in favor of, but this seems to be a good one. Perhaps dog owners will think twice when their dog is allowed to roam unleashed. Too many people and leashed dogs have been harmed by unleashed dogs. Even the most well behaved dogs can get spoofed outside or in their owners home.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it will be interesting to see how they figure out what the cost of the insurance will be. One thing does concern me though, I hope this will not prevent people from obtaining a pet because of insurance. It needs to be made affordable for those families of low income.
This site takes you to another story printed in the Times Union. The story is another reason for an insurance requirement, http://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Dogs-attack-baseball-coach-3544022.php
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree in principle, it just seems like another way for the government to get more money out of us.
ReplyDeleteI read that story in the TU, thank god the guy is alright.
New York already makes dog owners responsible for medical and veterinary costs for injuries caused by their pet under the one-bite rule. In addition to liability for medical costs, the owner may be required to pay a fine. The amount of the fine depends on whether the injury was to a person or animal, the seriousness of the injury, and whether the dog previously was adjudicated to be a dangerous dog. Agriculture & Markets Law, Section 121, subdivisions 6, 7 and 8.) Is there really a need for another law? And what about the accountability of the person who provokes your dog, knowingly took the risk of being injured by your dog, perhaps was trespassing or breaking the law, or was just unreasonably careless, and that carelessness contributed to his/her own injury? It's just too easy to always blame the dog owner and take away the personal responsibility of the "victim". And we must also guard against adding superfluous laws that tend to enrich insurance companies or law firms especially where legal remedies already exist. This doesn't mean there aren't negligent dog owners. But even the statistics linked to in Ann's article tend to hightlight a particular kind of dog. So if we are going to enact legislation that will affect all dog owners' pocketbooks, that doesn't account for breed personality or temperment that also doesn't allow dog owners to argue the victim's complicity, just be sure your cause is honorable, moral and justified.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad we don't have laws on the books for cats. I see many of cats running the neigborhood distroying others property. Cats on cars that scratch up hoods of cars and digging and spraying on others property.
ReplyDeleteNO WAY -- you are taking money out of residents pockets and putting it into insurance companies.. Who then will come up with some excuse not to pay which will then cause more legal fees to get the payment..
ReplyDeleteHow about taking the cost of this insurance premium payment out from our OUTRAGEOUS useless EG Taxes than maybe .. GROW UP people we do NOT want to give more money to INSURANCE companies or GOVERNMENT... we already pay TOO much taxes for CROOKED Insane Criminal Asylum called a town