Nsw Council Wins Fatal Dog Attack Appeal

[Tilly]

Warren council wins fatal dog attack appeal

From: AAP April 16, 2012 12:33PM

A NSW local council has won its appeal against having to pay $123,836 damages to the relatives of a girl who was mauled to death in a dog attack

.

Last May, a NSW District Court judge found Warren Shire Council, in the state's central west, breached its duty of care in failing to have the dogs declared dangerous.

In July 2006, four-year-old Tyra Kuehn was mauled to death by one or more of five pig hunting dogs after she found her way into the backyard of a Warren residence not far from her home.

The judge said the council had dealt with many complaints about the dogs owned by Thomas Wilson and knew they often escaped into the neighbourhood.

Today the NSW Court of Appeal allowed the council's challenge, concluding the council could not have made a declaration that the dogs were dangerous on the basis that they, without provocation, had attacked or killed animals, namely pigs.

"Such a declaration could not have been made because the dogs were trained to do precisely what they did and consequently their actions could not be described as `without provocation'," Justice Anthony Whealy said.

The relatives are now liable to pay the council's legal costs.

I found this rather interesting ...

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/warren-council-wins-fatal-dog-attack-appeal/story-e6freonf-1226327751637

Edited April 16, 2012 by Tilly

[Tilly]

Double post

Edited April 16, 2012 by Tilly

[Panto]

A little more detail in the smh article:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/tyra-judgment-thrown-out--fatal-dog-attack-family-loses-case-against-council-on-appeal-20120416-1x2q3.html

Doesn't sound right to me... but I don't have the full details. Hearing about this fatality really made me sick. The poor little girl.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Far too often the councils do not do the right thing, there are a lot of dogs out there who are an issue but get away with it, or rather the owners do.

[Jed]

Salient facts not highlighted in the newspaper article - but probably were in court

The child had often visited the dogs in the past without incident, but the owner was always present

The child climbed over two fences to get to the dogs, who were locked in a secure pen.

The child was seen walking down the street carrying a dead chicken at 7pm

The dogs had not attacked anyone before, although they had been out "causing trouble"

When you put a 4 year old child holding a dead chicken in with 5 dogs in their own pen, the outcome is not difficult to work out.

Most breeds would be fighting for the chicken. Maybe the intent was to kill the child, but I would think the chicken was the motivating force. If I went into my dogs with a dead chicken, there would be some action!! And they would have no intention of harming me, only of getting the chook.

Why was a 4 year old child wandering the streets carrying a dead chicken at 7pm?

Where were the parents?

I feel so dreadfully sorry for this poor little child, and I feel so sad that the parents failed in their duty of care to her.

The owner has been prosecuted, the dogs are dead. The father and brother sought to sue the council. I don't think, in this case, that the council acted badly and I think that justice has been served

Now we have laws classing hunting dogs as "dangerous" I don't know.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Jed

[Odin-Genie]

Salient facts not highlighted in the newspaper article - but probably were in court

The child had often visited the dogs in the past without incident, but the owner was always present

The child climbed over two fences to get to the dogs, who were locked in a secure pen.

The child was seen walking down the street carrying a dead chicken at 7pm

The dogs had not attacked anyone before, although they had been out "causing trouble"

When you put a 4 year old child holding a dead chicken in with 5 dogs in their own pen, the outcome is not difficult to work out.

Most breeds would be fighting for the chicken. Maybe the intent was to kill the child, but I would think the chicken was the motivating force. If I went into my dogs with a dead chicken, there would be some action!! And they would have no intention of harming me, only of getting the chook.

Why was a 4 year old child wandering the streets carrying a dead chicken at 7pm?

Where were the parents?

I feel so dreadfully sorry for this poor little child, and I feel so sad that the parents failed in their duty of care to her.

The owner has been prosecuted, the dogs are dead. The father and brother sought to sue the council. I don't think, in this case, that the council acted badly and I think that justice has been served

Now we have laws classing hunting dogs as "dangerous" I don't know.

Why are parents never charged with negligence in such instances? In this particular instance it is completely the parents' responsibility. Any group of dogs would react to a child walking into an enclosure with a dead chicken. Do we now need to keep all dogs under lock and key?

[Panto]

In articles after the incident, it was reported that the owner or acquaintance of the owner was babysitting at the request of the parent/s so that they could go to the shops.

[StaceyB]

In articles after the incident, it was reported that the owner or acquaintance of the owner was babysitting at the request of the parent/s so that they could go to the shops.

Regardless of who was caring for the girl at the time she should not have been outside unsupervised at that age let a lone at night. I hadn't heard about the chicken carcass, but I had heard the other details at the time (dogs were in an enclosure and the child scaled a fence 2 houses away to get to the dogs...)

I dont blame the dogs in this situation at all. Put a motivator like a chicken carcass in with a pack of dogs and things will get ugly. The child can't be blamed either, she was 4 years old and had no concept that what she was doing was dangerous. The fault lies with whoever was caring for her at the time, either the parents or a babysitter, they had a duty of care towards the child and they failed in that responsibility.

A dangerous dog declaration would have made bugger all of a difference really. The dog were already in a locked enclosure and I dont think a 4 year old is going to pay much attention to dangerous dog signs or high vis collars.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's hardly surprising that the Council won the appeal. The dogs were in there own yard when the incident occured. Neither the dog owner or the Council is responsible for her death.

[Alyosha]

I find it pretty awful that some people always look for someone else to blame, and can turn any tragedy into a money making venture.

[aussielover]

I find it pretty awful that some people always look for someone else to blame, and can turn any tragedy into a money making venture.

Agree.

This was not a freak accident- it could have easily been prevented if the parents of the child had adequately supervised her. It is not responsible to let a 4 year old wander into other peoples garden/houses. I am not saying one must watch a child 24/7, but you must at least, have measures in place to keep you child contained on your property. What if they get hit by a car or kidnapped? Dog attack would be the least of my worries in letting a 4 year old wander the streets by themselves.

I really feel for the poor little girl who was killed, as well as the dogs involved and the owner of the dogs.

[♪♫LMBC♫♪]

I'm not surprised the council won the appeal. How could they have declared the dogs dangerous when they had never attacked anyone before? The council holds no responsibility whatsoever. The responsibility lies with the owners of the dogs to ensure they were secure (they were) and the parents or whoever was caring for the girl to make sure she was supervised and not climbing into the enclosure. Its pretty clear in this situation who has neglected their responsibilities.