The negligent vs. non-negligent argument provides a loophole for dog owners to wriggle out of responsibility for serious harm and death, especially if they can afford a good lawyer and the injured party cannot. Since owning a dog is a purely voluntary decision, except in the case of service animals, strict liability is the logical choice.

Has everyone heard of the KISS rule? Lets just keep it nice and simple people. If you are the owner of any dog, regardless of breed, and that dog bites or harms someone, then you are responsible.
The only exception I think there should be is in the case of home trespassing. If someone comes onto your property and gets bitten then they made the choice therefore if anything happens to them then they are responsible for their own actions.

What do you mean by "loan vote"?

Why no bill requiring every household to own a pit bull? That makes more cents to me. (Whoops!)

Removing the dog from the equation is the simplest action. No pit bull, no bite, no law suit. Of course that just leaves the Rottweilers, Dobermans, German shepherds, and all the other big biters.

Just hold the owner of the pet liable. It seems silly to hold the property owner responsible when he/she is only charging for the use of the property. If someone gets bit they can sue the pet owner (via their renters insurance or working out payments through the court). To rent a property you need to be an adult and adults are generally held liable for members of their household, including their pets (when was the last time you heard of a landlord paying to feed a tenants pets or even children for that matter). Therefore the law should have the liability rest on the tenant because ownership and responsibility rests with the tenant not the landlord (the landlord is responsible for the building and property not for the pet that was not provided to the tenant by the landlord).

Yes, "Baltimore Matt" is right on track: We are responsible for anything our children --or pets--do. The judge was way out of line in creating a law. Her job was just to interpret the law. Instead, her decision caused us a lot of money as well as controversy in untangling the nuances.

Hey Sears,
I am in charge of mis spelling or as you so well put it gramattical gaffe. Can you get me on a radio ho where I can take questions. I would love to be able to anwser some of this stuff without the disbility of my gramttical and spelling dyslexia issues. I think Matt K is wrong and Maureen but I can't write well enogh to say Matt a neighborhood is a kids domain a dog is property secure it even on your own property you must secure your guns. A dog is autnomous danger so the standard of securing it is higher not lower. Maureen this case has seen no less then 17 judges and the entire court of uninformed opinion.

Pit bulls are nasty, nasty animals... Get rid of them

Brook, they're called prostitutes. Tell your mom to stop hanging out on my street.

I think it will be very hard to get a renter to pay damages if a dog bites a neighbor. Most renters don't carry any insurance or have little assets to collect damages from. I think a landlord has to have some responsibility since he is renting his property to a person that has a dog. The landlord should require the renter to have renter's insurance or the landlord should take a policy out that would cover a dog biting a person. Include the costs of the renter's policy in the cost of rent.

Parkville Honey, You got it, It is the same as with the bank the bank owns the house not you. They require you to have insurance to protect the asset. Once you own it if you wish toi drop your insurance then at least their is a asset to go after if your dog almost kills a kid. Landlords are the business owner of the property and should require ot carry insurance then everybody is equally yoked. In reality a renter could sue you ( your insurer and you can't sue them) Bit the landlord who has enabled and fostered this inequity is somehow a victim if they run there realestate business different then 70 % of all Marylanders who own houses. And guess what we the taxpayer pick up the tab for injuries that a victim or the individuals who fostered the problem don't have insurance like us (resident Homeowners) Dog bites are one of many things this law would fix with absentee landlords.

Brooks I agree with you completely

Mike, I wrote it this morning with a clear head. Yes it is all my work

Every mortgage I had required me to have homeowner's insurance. If I didn't, the bank purchased homeowner's insurance. The cost of insurance was included in my mortgage payment. Just make a law, all renter's have to have insurance that cover's dog bites. The landlord has to see a valid paid up renter's policy or the landlord will be required to purchase such insurance. I hate to see it go this way but I don't see any other solution.

A basic renter's policy can cost as little as $108 annually. AND increasing the liability from $100,000 for injuries to $500,000 costs only about an additional $15 a year. We mandate the owner of a car have a lot less financial responsibility to pay for more likely injuries. WHen I rented out my home to a couple with 3 dogs, I did not care whether they were Chihuahuas (which bite more often) or Pits, they had to show me their personal liablity on a pre-paid-in-fullrenters' policy was at least $300,000. The point is that it should not be the judge's rule, it belongs to elected officials to make a decision who is responsible. Because of that court case, the personal responsibilty was shifted to the person with the "deeper pockets".

Baltimore Matt Insurance companies are un afraid to take the risk it is what they do. You are completely wrong about cost. A lease is completely different then a mortgage. As a mortgage holder/homeowner you have all rights over the house to modify as you please the bank maintians no control. The bank only steps in on a unpaid debt. In a lease the landlord maintains control and therefore cannot have it both ways let them give complete control of the house to the renter and you may have a point. They donot let them smoke change paint or modify the house, This is a lanlord lording over a property and escaping responsibility. A mortgage is a all together different thing.

Matt to not have insurance you would have to outright own the house no mortgage on it otherwise it is required to be insured by the any and all banks. My wife Irene is a Mortgage underwriter. If the house is owned then you would have a asset to bond your dog ownership and take responsibility. In true responsibility taking it is three tiered. Like at work safe training, Safe Equipment and #3 a compensatory component to ccover that needs 1 and 2 will mean three is going to happen. By your logic I could drop my car insurance if I either am a good driver or a bad driver with a safe car. All public safety and work place safety are a three teired component.

Parkville Honey actually it is not government intrusion. You see the Police and Fire Department and all other Public services base their structure on the fact that the vast majority will not need them because they will be privately positioned with car or homeowners insurance to not need tax dollars. The government should not allow any Policies that do not cause those not in the same protective boat to not have to enact some kind of other measures. For instance no insurance for car ride the bus. No insurance for renter muzzle your dog when in public. It is all real simple stuff

Quite the reverse Matt if they can't pay they are getting a free ride on the Tax payer. If you ever had a public service background you would know it is three teired. Are you a responsible worker? Great tell your boss to drop your workers comp coverage.

Maureen You are getting very warm almost hot. The landlord is a business and makes money off of the transaction. They have a responsibility to see that their business has no greater effect on the neighborhood then does the other mortgage holders. If they require them to have insurance you have no problem which is why you have no problem with some people who may own their home but be complete idots. The point is none of this has to do with anything other then equal access and equal responsibility. As far as the money what do you mean the Landlord has deeper pockets. It is the insurance company that gets sued that is why you have it to protect your pockets.

Abe you sue no one the governement just raises our taxes the tax payer does'nt even get a fighting chance in court. What everyone misses is Why if someone doesnt have insurance or their landlord doesnt require it. why do you consider either responsible people? More important what is someone with no moiney for insurance doing even owning any dog when the average properly raised dog cost 2800. per year

ABE , Now you are making my point. I think everybody just resents lawyers and law suits and decided that there is no circumstance where it may be good to sue someone into responsibility taking. Either way no one here understands what it takes to have advanced the discussion as far as I have. Anyone that says they did'nt learn something or take a new or modified point of view especially on the one free bite rule is probably kidding themselves. Don't be so quick to assume that that is the only revealation you will have on this matter. It is all good what I am advancing my whole family are public servants. My son had seven blood transfusions no one really knowns how long or when the buuble will pop. Rest assured you all and many others will learn think and direct and conduct yourselves in a new manner and that my dear brothers and sisters is my mission in all of this. That is why I am out here doing what I do. Just know that my case is not affected if the law changes back. So ask yourself why do I still stay involved if my case cannot be overruled by a law change?

Pit bulls are breed for fighting and guarding... its just inherent behavior breed into the species regardless of what people say.

Of course owners are the #1 preventer and stopper to thwart this inherent behavior. 1. Great owners have great dogs!
2. Slacking owners, (the ones that say, "let 'um dogs fight it out they will learn their rank in the pack") are the owners who have sketchy pit bulls that behave fine, then one day they snap and attack another dog or person. Then of course we hear the old common saying, "he has always been a great family dog...I don't know what happened".
3. Aggressive teaching owners that want the aggressiveness in the breed; well are what they are and they are the ones who should banned from owning any dog.

Just getting a pit bull to get a pit bull is a big responsibility and task to raise a good safe dog. These great owners work hard to raise a good dog and it shows. Its just the dam slackers and people who want one to be tough and aggressive are the issue.

Reminds me of the gun issue. Guns don't kill people, people do. Its kinda the same with a pit bull. Pit bulls don't kill people, slacking and poor owners do.

You should do more research on the breed you are referring to instead of listening to all the media hype surrounding pit bulls. Dogs bite people everyday, the media only makes it a story when it is a pit bull. At least that is what it seems like to me.

Well said Brook!

Brian, You asked my motivation and I told you what I believe. I believe if you loan your car to someone and they get in an accident the insurance follows the car the same as if they run a light at a speed camera. I told you I think it makes sense to apply this to landlords. I chose to find a law that did that. I understand your position but that is a position of the law applied to how it is now. That is what I am trying to change in strict Liability. Because I believe it should work that way for all the reason I said. It does not mean it will or that I am correct. It means that how I see it. I think if you don;t like what comes with being a landlord get in another business. Or no pets both solve the problem Or require insurance for your tenates or get a rider. If being a renter means you can't have a dog, paint the walls a different color or smoke then buy if you can't buy you save the money from owning a pet and put it toward a town payment. I have very deep empathy for someone who loves their pet. I have no sympathy for someone that thinks the world should make exceptions for them to have it. My sister owns her home and has a Pitbull she completely supports the law and she is prepared and positioned to put her money where her mouth is. Again if you can't rent to a person in comfort without concern that their activities may make you liable then why would you wnat me to live next to someone who you aren't comfortable with. Now here is the lesson ---

most people here that talk about money that I want and yet their whole basis for arguement has not been the public Safety. Perhaps you should google Anthony Solesky testimony youtube and you will see what I am all about it is on the record. I love all of the feedback it tells me much. Where is your plan to keep bite victims safe? Mine was born out of a lawsuit. Why because I knew it is exactly what would make people get off of their ass and do something. So tell me before I brought suit what where any of you doing to stop the dog mauling problem? What is your plan now? Not in wiords but what government offical or agency are you working with to get a bill drafted? Perhaps you should run all of my statements through a profile all of them where I write and speak and am on the news. Perhaps you should ask a Police friend to profile me. Then ask them to look at your posts and have them profile you. What are you trying to catch me at being honest? I am sad for the many post that think my motivations are money. Not sad for me but sad for you who feel small somehow , for not doing more and then must tell yourselves noway somebody else could be do it for the right reasons. Long story short I told you all many times why I do it. It is in writing and media. Now all I will ask of you is have you ever considered that I do it for all of the reasons I say and if not why not?

i wish you compliment of the season with great joy in my heart for coming in contact with you and i have a special reason of contacting you which i will make known to you when i get your respond o my email address (sarahissa130@yahoo.com) there i will tell you everything about me and the reason of contacting you . SARAH GOD BLESS YOU DEAR

Sarah, I have tried repeatedly to contact you. What do you want me to do with the money?