关于dog bite的law# pets - 心有所宠
l*o
1 楼
刚才google了一下，大家可以一起学习哈, 这篇文章是网上搜的，只是大致讲解一下，
具体每个州的规定最好是直接去看那个州具体的条文和案例。
很多州都有dog-bite status, 规定狗主人要对自家狗造成的伤害（不一定是bite）付
责任。基本来说，只要是狗对别人造成了伤害，不管主人当时是否试图阻止，都要付责
任。而受伤者也不用去举证狗主人做错了什么。
比如，明尼苏达的规定：
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting
peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the
dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full
amount of the injury sustained.
受伤者必须证明：
1，自己因为对方狗而受伤（不一定是被咬，也许是冲着他吼导致他自己摔了一跤的话
也算）
2，被告者是狗的主人
3，受害者没有"provoke the dog to bite"
4, 受害者“ was acting peaceably somewhere he or she had the right to be.”
从这些看来，我猜小偷什么被咬了狗主人是不用负责的？因为he/she does not have
the right to be there. 如果受伤者主动骚扰了狗而被咬，狗主人也是不用负责的。
记得我前段时间贴过一条新闻，一个小孩在朋友家去摸在黑暗中睡觉的大狗，结果被咬
了。最后狗主人不负责任，因为陪审团认为，去骚扰在黑暗中睡觉的狗是一种"provoke"
再比如arizona，规定是：
24-521 Liability for dog bites
The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in or on a public
place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the
owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of
its viciousness.
24-523 Provocation as defense
Proof of provocation of the attack by the person injured shall be a defense
to the action for damages.
总结：
1，受伤者必须是被咬伤，其它的不算
2，被告者是狗主人
3，被害者被咬时必须在公共场合，或者合法的在某私人地方。
这个和之前明尼苏达的规定最大的不同在于只有咬伤才付责任，如果狗是和你玩的时候
扑上来把你撞到了受伤了，狗主人不用负责任。这一条叫做"bite only"
总的说，规定bite only的州是：California, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Montana, New Jersy, Pennsylyania, Washington
not bite only的州是：Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Dist. of Columbia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska
, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin
有些情况下bite only，有些not的州： Arizona, Florida
各个有dog-bite status的州又有不同的细则
鉴于俺在康州过日子，于是搜了下康州具体的条文，这边是not bite only, 而且狗主
人要负责，除非受害者“was committing a trespass or other tort, or was
teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.”而且这一点需要狗主人来举证。另外很
重要的一点，trespassing means more than mere entry!!! 而是“committing or
intends to commit an injurious act” 晕... 难道说小偷偷偷摸摸进来狗咬了也不
行啊 :(）
需要注意的是，当dog-bite status不适用的时候，有时受伤者可以通过common law
theory , or on a negligence theory来告狗主人。
在common law theory里面， “dog's owner or keeper is liable for injuries the
dog causes only if the owner knew or had reason to know that the dog was
likely to cause that kind of injury” 这个一般被叫做one-bite rule, 因为狗第
一次开口咬别人的时候，主人也许可以推说不知道狗会咬人而不负责，但是之后的就要
负责了。
实行one bite rule的州
Alaska Mississippi Oregon
Arkansas Missouri Soutd Dakota
Colorado Nevada Tennessee
Delaware New Mexico Texas
Georgia9 New York Vermont
Idaho North Carolina* Virginia
Kansas North Dakota Wyoming
Maryland
一旦打起官司，法官就需要判断主人是否知道狗有可能咬人。一般法官会看：
1， precious bites, 这个很显然，以前咬过人的。 （puppy nips之类的可能不算。)
2， barking at strangers, "If a dog, usually kept in the house or a fenced
yard, barks when the doorbell rings but has never threatened a person, its
owners will probably not be liable if it bites someone." （让我想到狼来了，
汗）
3， Threatening people. 如果一只狗在公共场合经常冲靠近的人growl, snaps， 那
主人应该知道这狗有咬人的倾向。
(总结2和3，似乎是说狗在自家冲陌生人凶很正常，在外面这样的话就会被认为是坏狗.
..)
4， Jumping on people. 如果有一只很playful，平时习惯于扑人的大狗，主人应该是
知道这种习惯的，并且知道这狗的体重会对人造成伤害的，所以一旦出事了，主人要负
责。
5， Frightening people. If a dog likes to run along the fence that separates
his yard from the sidewalk barking furiously, or chases pedestrians or
bicyclists, the owner may be liable if the dog causes an injury. （喜欢沿着
fence跑，还叫的要注意了！！！）
6，Fighting with other dogs， 如果狗一直对人很友好，但是和狗打过架，那么主人
也不一定知道狗会咬人。法官相信狗之间的rule和狗和人之间是不一样的。 （这个不
错...)
7, fight training, 如果狗被训练fight, 主人应当知道狗有可能咬人。
8，Complaints about the dog. 如果有别人抱怨过该狗威胁或咬过人，狗主人应该知
道狗有咬人的可能, 不过这条实际应用上结果不定。
9，The dog's breed， 法庭不认为特定的品种会更喜欢咬人，所以你有条德牧的话，
不代表你知道他会咬人。 不过实际上，“凶狗”（比如杜宾，罗维，德牧，比特之类
）总是会被更严厉的对待。T_T
10, Warning signs 放一个"beware of dogs"的牌子不代表你知道狗会咬人。
要注意的是：法官看重的是，你是否知道狗有可能会伤害人，这和狗的脾气无关，因为
有时过于热情也会伤害到人...
The Dog Owner's Negligence
除了上面两条，Negligence是第三条可以用来告狗主人的。
“A dog owner who is unreasonably careless (negligent) in handling a dog may
be legally responsible if somebody is hurt as a foreseeable result.”
狗主人是否疏忽很难定义，只能看具体案例：
1， A dog is chained in the unfenced front yard, so that it can't reach the
sidewalk, and a "Beware of Dog" sign is posted. Someone walks up to the dog
and gets bitten. Ruled: The owner was not negligent. Confining the dog
inside the owner's property and posting a sign are reasonable precautions
against someone being injured.
2， A house guest, searching for the bathroom, is frightened when she hears
the hosts' dog growl, and falls down a flight of stairs. The dog was behind
a gate in the laundry room, across the hall from the bathroom. Ruled: The
owners were not negligent; they took reasonable precautions and were not
liable for the injury。
3， A dog owner lets his dog loose in his yard, and the dog runs at a
bicyclist riding by. Trying to avoid the dog, the cyclist is thrown from his
bicycle and suffers permanent hearing loss. Jury verdict: The dog's owner
was negligent.
4， A dog owner lets his dog loose in his yard, and the dog runs into the
street and hits a motorcycle, seriously injuring the riders. Ruled: Because
the dog did not have a history of chasing vehicles, the dog owner was not
negligent.
对于养凶狗的，要当心
北卡有一个案例：court ruled that dog owners were responsible for an attack
by their rottweiler, even though they had no knowledge that the dog would be
dangerous. The court ruled that the owners were negligent because they
should have known the "general propensities" of rottweilers, which an expert
witness at trial had described as very strong, aggressive, and
unpredictable。
狗主人违法的时候，也被认为是negligence
比如，A California man let his dog roam, in violation of a local leash law.
The dog ran into the road, and a pickup truck crashed trying to avoid it.
Two men riding in the back of the truck were thrown out; they suffered
serious permanent injuries. A judge ruled that the dog owner's violation of
the leash law was negligence, and awarded the injured men $2.6 million.
接下去从狗主人的角度考虑，如何defense!
The owner may be able to avoid liability if the injured person:
* provoked the injury from the dog
* knowingly took the risk of being injured by the dog
* was trespassing
* was breaking the law, or
* was unreasonably careless, and that carelessness contributed to the
injury.
是否成功取决于当地具体的条款。 以及狗主人如何被sue
1, 判断对方是否provoke the dog。 这和对方本意无关，比如一个toddler本是好意
，试图去拥抱一只陌生狗，结果被咬了一口，主人很可能不用负责。
2， 被咬者是否只要有被咬的风险。 换句话说，如果狗主人事先对客人说，别去院子
！我家狗可能会咬人，但是客人还是自己去了，结果被咬了，那主人不用负责。
这个时候，有块“beware of dog"的牌子很有用，因为提示对方有危险。
California, Illinois, Connecticut都承认这条理由。
不过有些州不管这点，比如iowa和ohio， 即使被咬者事先知道风险，主人也要负责...
3，被咬者是否trespassing?
这条各个州规定也不一样。有的小孩翻过栅栏去邻居家捡球，结果被咬了，主人不负责。
4， 被咬者是不是违法了
有些州规定被咬者必须证明自己当时没有违法
5， 被咬者是不是自己careless
这点经常能让主人少赔点钱
接下去这篇文章都是讨论各种insurance，是否cover赔付之类的了，就不贴了
具体每个州的规定最好是直接去看那个州具体的条文和案例。
很多州都有dog-bite status, 规定狗主人要对自家狗造成的伤害（不一定是bite）付
责任。基本来说，只要是狗对别人造成了伤害，不管主人当时是否试图阻止，都要付责
任。而受伤者也不用去举证狗主人做错了什么。
比如，明尼苏达的规定：
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting
peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the
dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full
amount of the injury sustained.
受伤者必须证明：
1，自己因为对方狗而受伤（不一定是被咬，也许是冲着他吼导致他自己摔了一跤的话
也算）
2，被告者是狗的主人
3，受害者没有"provoke the dog to bite"
4, 受害者“ was acting peaceably somewhere he or she had the right to be.”
从这些看来，我猜小偷什么被咬了狗主人是不用负责的？因为he/she does not have
the right to be there. 如果受伤者主动骚扰了狗而被咬，狗主人也是不用负责的。
记得我前段时间贴过一条新闻，一个小孩在朋友家去摸在黑暗中睡觉的大狗，结果被咬
了。最后狗主人不负责任，因为陪审团认为，去骚扰在黑暗中睡觉的狗是一种"provoke"
再比如arizona，规定是：
24-521 Liability for dog bites
The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in or on a public
place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the
owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of
its viciousness.
24-523 Provocation as defense
Proof of provocation of the attack by the person injured shall be a defense
to the action for damages.
总结：
1，受伤者必须是被咬伤，其它的不算
2，被告者是狗主人
3，被害者被咬时必须在公共场合，或者合法的在某私人地方。
这个和之前明尼苏达的规定最大的不同在于只有咬伤才付责任，如果狗是和你玩的时候
扑上来把你撞到了受伤了，狗主人不用负责任。这一条叫做"bite only"
总的说，规定bite only的州是：California, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Montana, New Jersy, Pennsylyania, Washington
not bite only的州是：Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Dist. of Columbia,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska
, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin
有些情况下bite only，有些not的州： Arizona, Florida
各个有dog-bite status的州又有不同的细则
鉴于俺在康州过日子，于是搜了下康州具体的条文，这边是not bite only, 而且狗主
人要负责，除非受害者“was committing a trespass or other tort, or was
teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.”而且这一点需要狗主人来举证。另外很
重要的一点，trespassing means more than mere entry!!! 而是“committing or
intends to commit an injurious act” 晕... 难道说小偷偷偷摸摸进来狗咬了也不
行啊 :(）
需要注意的是，当dog-bite status不适用的时候，有时受伤者可以通过common law
theory , or on a negligence theory来告狗主人。
在common law theory里面， “dog's owner or keeper is liable for injuries the
dog causes only if the owner knew or had reason to know that the dog was
likely to cause that kind of injury” 这个一般被叫做one-bite rule, 因为狗第
一次开口咬别人的时候，主人也许可以推说不知道狗会咬人而不负责，但是之后的就要
负责了。
实行one bite rule的州
Alaska Mississippi Oregon
Arkansas Missouri Soutd Dakota
Colorado Nevada Tennessee
Delaware New Mexico Texas
Georgia9 New York Vermont
Idaho North Carolina* Virginia
Kansas North Dakota Wyoming
Maryland
一旦打起官司，法官就需要判断主人是否知道狗有可能咬人。一般法官会看：
1， precious bites, 这个很显然，以前咬过人的。 （puppy nips之类的可能不算。)
2， barking at strangers, "If a dog, usually kept in the house or a fenced
yard, barks when the doorbell rings but has never threatened a person, its
owners will probably not be liable if it bites someone." （让我想到狼来了，
汗）
3， Threatening people. 如果一只狗在公共场合经常冲靠近的人growl, snaps， 那
主人应该知道这狗有咬人的倾向。
(总结2和3，似乎是说狗在自家冲陌生人凶很正常，在外面这样的话就会被认为是坏狗.
..)
4， Jumping on people. 如果有一只很playful，平时习惯于扑人的大狗，主人应该是
知道这种习惯的，并且知道这狗的体重会对人造成伤害的，所以一旦出事了，主人要负
责。
5， Frightening people. If a dog likes to run along the fence that separates
his yard from the sidewalk barking furiously, or chases pedestrians or
bicyclists, the owner may be liable if the dog causes an injury. （喜欢沿着
fence跑，还叫的要注意了！！！）
6，Fighting with other dogs， 如果狗一直对人很友好，但是和狗打过架，那么主人
也不一定知道狗会咬人。法官相信狗之间的rule和狗和人之间是不一样的。 （这个不
错...)
7, fight training, 如果狗被训练fight, 主人应当知道狗有可能咬人。
8，Complaints about the dog. 如果有别人抱怨过该狗威胁或咬过人，狗主人应该知
道狗有咬人的可能, 不过这条实际应用上结果不定。
9，The dog's breed， 法庭不认为特定的品种会更喜欢咬人，所以你有条德牧的话，
不代表你知道他会咬人。 不过实际上，“凶狗”（比如杜宾，罗维，德牧，比特之类
）总是会被更严厉的对待。T_T
10, Warning signs 放一个"beware of dogs"的牌子不代表你知道狗会咬人。
要注意的是：法官看重的是，你是否知道狗有可能会伤害人，这和狗的脾气无关，因为
有时过于热情也会伤害到人...
The Dog Owner's Negligence
除了上面两条，Negligence是第三条可以用来告狗主人的。
“A dog owner who is unreasonably careless (negligent) in handling a dog may
be legally responsible if somebody is hurt as a foreseeable result.”
狗主人是否疏忽很难定义，只能看具体案例：
1， A dog is chained in the unfenced front yard, so that it can't reach the
sidewalk, and a "Beware of Dog" sign is posted. Someone walks up to the dog
and gets bitten. Ruled: The owner was not negligent. Confining the dog
inside the owner's property and posting a sign are reasonable precautions
against someone being injured.
2， A house guest, searching for the bathroom, is frightened when she hears
the hosts' dog growl, and falls down a flight of stairs. The dog was behind
a gate in the laundry room, across the hall from the bathroom. Ruled: The
owners were not negligent; they took reasonable precautions and were not
liable for the injury。
3， A dog owner lets his dog loose in his yard, and the dog runs at a
bicyclist riding by. Trying to avoid the dog, the cyclist is thrown from his
bicycle and suffers permanent hearing loss. Jury verdict: The dog's owner
was negligent.
4， A dog owner lets his dog loose in his yard, and the dog runs into the
street and hits a motorcycle, seriously injuring the riders. Ruled: Because
the dog did not have a history of chasing vehicles, the dog owner was not
negligent.
对于养凶狗的，要当心
北卡有一个案例：court ruled that dog owners were responsible for an attack
by their rottweiler, even though they had no knowledge that the dog would be
dangerous. The court ruled that the owners were negligent because they
should have known the "general propensities" of rottweilers, which an expert
witness at trial had described as very strong, aggressive, and
unpredictable。
狗主人违法的时候，也被认为是negligence
比如，A California man let his dog roam, in violation of a local leash law.
The dog ran into the road, and a pickup truck crashed trying to avoid it.
Two men riding in the back of the truck were thrown out; they suffered
serious permanent injuries. A judge ruled that the dog owner's violation of
the leash law was negligence, and awarded the injured men $2.6 million.
接下去从狗主人的角度考虑，如何defense!
The owner may be able to avoid liability if the injured person:
* provoked the injury from the dog
* knowingly took the risk of being injured by the dog
* was trespassing
* was breaking the law, or
* was unreasonably careless, and that carelessness contributed to the
injury.
是否成功取决于当地具体的条款。 以及狗主人如何被sue
1, 判断对方是否provoke the dog。 这和对方本意无关，比如一个toddler本是好意
，试图去拥抱一只陌生狗，结果被咬了一口，主人很可能不用负责。
2， 被咬者是否只要有被咬的风险。 换句话说，如果狗主人事先对客人说，别去院子
！我家狗可能会咬人，但是客人还是自己去了，结果被咬了，那主人不用负责。
这个时候，有块“beware of dog"的牌子很有用，因为提示对方有危险。
California, Illinois, Connecticut都承认这条理由。
不过有些州不管这点，比如iowa和ohio， 即使被咬者事先知道风险，主人也要负责...
3，被咬者是否trespassing?
这条各个州规定也不一样。有的小孩翻过栅栏去邻居家捡球，结果被咬了，主人不负责。
4， 被咬者是不是违法了
有些州规定被咬者必须证明自己当时没有违法
5， 被咬者是不是自己careless
这点经常能让主人少赔点钱
接下去这篇文章都是讨论各种insurance，是否cover赔付之类的了，就不贴了
