Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

solidrecommendations t1_j9rqx4s wrote

Reply to comment by CountNaberius in Same dog has bit my dog 2 times in the last 6 months by Plenty_Library2183

That’s not true. You can take legal action against an owner of a dog that’s never bitten before. It’s just easier if the dog has.

11

CountNaberius t1_j9rrgd9 wrote

In VA, on the first offense, you have to prove negligence or violation of an animal control law to get compensation. Again, not sure about D.C. law.

−3

CountNaberius t1_j9rrcel wrote

https://dogbitelaw.com/one-bite-state/virginia-dog-bite-law/amp

−4

solidrecommendations t1_j9rro7v wrote

Did you even read this? It doesn’t say what you think it says. Please show me where it says “VA law … prohibits legal action against dog bites if it’s the first indication of aggression.”

Don’t spread misinformation.

10

CountNaberius t1_j9rs8pr wrote

Sure, you can still pursue legal action, you can pursue legal action for someone sneezing on you, but the one bite rule makes it much harder to get compensation from the owner / have them be held liable without proving negligence.

Don’t be a dick.

−10

solidrecommendations t1_j9rug1v wrote

How am I being a dick? You said something wrong. I said from the outset it’s easier to win if the dog bit before.

11

TheDeHymenizer t1_j9u59wj wrote

>Virginia holds a person legally liable for a dog bite if the person owns the dog and knew or should have known it previously bit or acted like it wanted to bite a person, or if the person's negligence or violation of an animal control law caused the bite to happen. Unfortunately this is one of the states that does not have a strict liability dog bite statute.

Where is he wrong exactly?

>Virginia dog bite laws tell the people that it is okay for their dog to bite someone, once. That they are not responsible for it. That there is no consequence when it happens. That they can look the other way. Shrug it off. Forget about it.

IE you said his own link showed the opposite of what he was saying but a quick skimming of it shows exactly what he was saying.

−1

solidrecommendations t1_j9u6fdv wrote

It doesn’t though. It just says that Virginia doesn’t have strict liability for bites unless it’s a known issue. It also says you can still sue on a negligence theory, however. So saying you can’t be held liable until after a first bite is incorrect. It’s just way easier once strict liability is in play.

5