Liability for aggressive dog

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Liability for Aggressive Dog
Dog owners are always liable for any injury caused by their pets in specific cases. Some of these cases include incidences where the owner knows that the dog has a tendency of causing such injuries or if the damage or the injury is as a result of the unreasonable negligence of the owner. In this case, there are three kinds of laws that can be used to address the owner’s liability for the actions of their pets (Maramraju, et al. 2459). The dog bites statute, which states that the owner is automatically reliable to any damage of property or injury, even with no any provocation. One bite rule is the second law which indicates that the owner is not responsible for any bite for the first time by its dog. However, when the dog has shown any sign of aggressiveness at any point, the owner may be reliable, especially if the dog has been labeled a vicious propensity. Moreover, some states have ignored this law, therefore holding the owner reliable in any case when the injury or damage occurs. Negligence law is the third one that applies for pet ownership. In this case, the dog owner is reliable to the injured in case of an accident.
According to the ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court, in the Steagald et al. v. Eason et al., the victims of the dog bite were granted the right to claim damage for the bite caused by dog from the owner regardless whether the dog had a history of the taste or aggressiveness or has never shown it before (Maramraju, et al.

2459). The court also presumed that sniffing or attempt to bite is punishable by law since it provides a threat to the safety of human lives. It, therefore, becomes the responsibility to the dog owner to take keen note on the behavior of the dog and avoid any chance of carelessness. In this case, aggressive dogs should be placed under tight control, either by caging or holding them in public places. The owner is reliable for any damage caused due to any escape by the pet
Keeping aggressive pets like dogs require clear guidelines and adherence to the animal laws. In this case, the dog must not be a threat to the freedom of any human to walk in free places. However, in a matter of trespass, either intentional or unintentional, the owner may not be reliable since the dog may have been trained to control the movement into the premises. It, therefore, requires that aggressive pets such as dogs are to serve specific purposes to the owner, mainly security. Such dogs should not be let to interact with the public. Any threat caused by the dog or disturbances calls for the responsibility of the owner.
In conclusion, aggressive dog laws are meant to provide a solution in the cases where the owners do not take responsibility for damages caused by their pets. It put them responsible, therefore providing an opportunity for the safety of the public in the public places. However, in the case of malicious trespass or unintentional trespass, there may be a factor of consideration before the court decides to punish the owner of the pet. In this case, the victim might be held responsible and may be penalized for malicious trespass to the property of the owner of the pet.
Work Cited
Maramraju, Sri Harsha, et al. “Small animal simultaneous PET/MRI: initial experiences in a 9.4 T microMRI.” Physics in Medicine & Biology 56.8 (2011): 2459.