Now for my CJ 399 class we have to respond to a weekly discussion that deals with some aspect of New Mexico law. From tort to tenant law we’ve covered it all. *yawn* This week’s question was interesting though and seems to have sparked a lively debate so I would like to pose this question to all of my readers.

Some states provide that, in the absence of negligence, a dog owner is not responsible for damages sustained by someone bitten by the dog where there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the dog owner and this is the first time that the dog has bitten someone.

Owning a dog is not an abnormally dangerous activity, such as owning lions or tigers, and strict liability therefore would not apply. Other states hold dog owners liable for the first bite, even in the absence of negligence on the part of the dog owner. Which approach makes more sense to you and why?

Now in my opinion the first law, in the absence of negligence, a dog owner is not responsible for damages sustained by someone bitten by the dog where there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the dog owner and this is the first time that the dog has bitten someone makes the most sense, but I don’t agree with it entirely.

If a person is foolish enough to break into a home, trespass on private property, threaten the dog’s owner, or threaten and or provoke the dog itself than the owner (and subsequently the dog) should not be held liable what so ever. Negligence is clearly not an issue in this regard and the person who was bitten had no business being or doing what they were doing at the time. To top it off it shouldn’t matter if it’s a first offense for the dog or not in that sort of instance. What if the owner lives in an area prone to high crime and the house has been burglarized more than once? If the dog managed to bite and chase off the culprits on multiple occasions why should the dog be held liable? The dog should be lauded as a hero!

If negligence is not an issue I see no reason why a dog should be punished and the owner prosecuted, regardless of whether it’s a first bite or not. Now if the person had left the dog unleashed and it ran out and bit a passerby, well that’s a horse of a different color now isn’t it. In all honesty though I think there shouldn’t be a single law blanketing the entire topic, but rather each case should be evaluated on a one to one basis.

Of course this is what makes sense, heaven forbid our court system and the laws on the books to make sense! This is the country that allowed the burglar who fell off the roof of the house he had broken into to turn around and sue the owner of said house for scaring him off by brandishing an unloaded rifle.

What about you the readers our there, what are your thoughts on this? I guess you could say this ties in nicely with my little rant on responsibility and accountability.