From: UAOA-URDOG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:UAOA-URDOG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sue Cone
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:34 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yhgjjtj
Court: Landlords may be liable if tenant's pit bull attacks
By Kyle Cheney/Statehouse News Service
Daily News Tribune
Posted Oct 20, 2009 @ 02:07 AM
WALTHAM —
The state's second-highest court ruled Monday that a landlord may be held accountable if a tenant's pit bull goes on the attack, specifically singling out the breed as one known to have a propensity for aggression.
The ruling, reversing a lower-court decision that dismissed a negligence charge against a Waltham landlord, arose from a 2005 lawsuit against landlords Emil and Clara Florio in which a 10-year-old boy's leg was mangled by their tenant's pit bull named Tiny....
(snip)
...In its argument, the appeals court made use of a 2008 state Supreme Judicial Court decision that found pit bulls are "commonly known to be aggressive." In that decision, the SJC determined police officers may not have to "knock and announce" their presence to execute a search warrant if a pit bull is on the premises.
The ruling comes as Senate lawmakers debate a bill that would define dangerous dogs and allow any person to file a complaint with a local hearing authority to designate a dog as dangerous. If the hearing authority determines a dog is dangerous, the authority could require owners to keep their dogs restrained, confined and, when away from home, muzzled and leashed....
NAIA News
National Animal Interest Alliance
