URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Bad Manners and Brimstone
  HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Life in General
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 56198--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Jem Date: August 18, 2020, 8:15 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I actually think being jumped on can be “damage” in and of
       itself! I’ve known people who have been injured in various ways
       when dogs jumped on them. One friend of my moms actually sued
       and ended up settling for what I understand to be a lot of money
       because she hurt her knee when a neighbors dog jumped on her.
       #Post#: 56199--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Dazi Date: August 18, 2020, 8:41 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Jem link=topic=1824.msg56198#msg56198
       date=1597799749]
       I actually think being jumped on can be “damage” in and of
       itself! I’ve known people who have been injured in various ways
       when dogs jumped on them. One friend of my moms actually sued
       and ended up settling for what I understand to be a lot of money
       because she hurt her knee when a neighbors dog jumped on her.
       [/quote]
       Yep. I've had horrible scratches and bruises on me and threw out
       my back once because a jumper caught me off guard.
       A friend of mine got knocked down and broke her tailbone. She
       ended up having to sue the homeowner's insurance company to
       cover her medical bills and time off work.
       #Post#: 56203--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Hmmm Date: August 19, 2020, 9:10 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Jem link=topic=1824.msg56198#msg56198
       date=1597799749]
       I actually think being jumped on can be “damage” in and of
       itself! I’ve known people who have been injured in various ways
       when dogs jumped on them. One friend of my moms actually sued
       and ended up settling for what I understand to be a lot of money
       because she hurt her knee when a neighbors dog jumped on her.
       [/quote]
       Yes, I'm well aware that people have been injured by jumping
       dogs. I am discussing probabilities. The millions a day
       instances of a dog jumping vs the number of injuries or other
       damage caused when it occurs is relatively low. In my lifetime,
       I've probably been jumped on by other people's dogs at least 100
       times. I've never been injured.
       Jumping dogs are very annoying and owner's should stop allowing
       it. I have very strong opinions on this to the point of having a
       slight rift with my sister all the way to stopping going to a
       good friend's home because she and her family did not control
       their dog.
       But I stand by my position that a dog owner would not assume
       there is a high probability of their jumping dog causing damage
       or injury. There is a higher probability of it causing anxiety,
       fear or annoyance.
       #Post#: 56207--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: sms Date: August 19, 2020, 9:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Scratches and fouled up clothes are actually pretty common - I
       think people brush it off and pretend it's OK because they don't
       want a scene.  If you have a big dog with dirty paws and claws I
       don't see how anyone can say they don't anticipate that damage
       and minor injury is a distinct possibility.  Not an
       inevitability to be sure but certainly not a remote occurrence.
       #Post#: 56212--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Aleko Date: August 19, 2020, 12:37 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]Not an inevitability to be sure but certainly not a
       remote occurrence.[/quote]
       Maybe not an absolute 100% inevitability. But if you have a big
       dog with dirty paws that is routinely allowed to jump at people,
       it’s so strong and so foreseeable a probability that it will
       eventually hurt someone / damage their clothes / break their
       spectacles, that you should consider yourself responsible if it
       does. And even if you don’t, the law probably will.
       #Post#: 56224--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: TootsNYC Date: August 19, 2020, 3:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Kimpossible link=topic=1824.msg56163#msg56163
       date=1597754828]
       Lisa knew OP would be coming over after work.  I have to assume
       (correct me please) that she knows where OP works, and she'd
       know that OP follows a dress code. One might not expect a Chanel
       suit, but one should expect really nice, dressy clothing. Lisa
       knows her dog jumps. She knows OP is coming over. Lisa should
       have done something to prevent the dog from jumping on the OP.
       Under those circumstances, Lisa should at the very least offered
       to have the item cleaned.
       [/quote]
       No matter who is coming over, Lisa should have retrained her dog
       to keep it jumping on people.
       I too wouldn't expect someone to replace my clothing, but I'd be
       pissed at her inability to train her dog, and at her cavalier
       attitude about catering to him.
       [quote]whether it is the momentary lapse of controlling your dog
       [/quote]
       The thing here is, that's not a momentary lapse.
       So it wouldn't change my opinion on being reimbursed. But I'd be
       salty about it, and I wouldn't have any qualms about feeling
       that way.
       And if she'd been more apologetic, or if I'd had any evidence
       that she generally tried to teach her dog to not jump, that
       would mollify me alot. But it doesn't seem to have been the
       case.
       #Post#: 56225--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Jem Date: August 19, 2020, 3:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Hmmm link=topic=1824.msg56195#msg56195
       date=1597786052]
       But the probability of their jumper damaging my clothes is
       pretty small or causing injury is pretty small. So those animal
       owners know there is a moderate to high level of chance their
       jumper will annoy a guest but not a high level that damage will
       occur in my opinion. Just like in my example, an adult knows
       there is a high probability of a cup following if set on the
       corner of a table.
       Liability to me is all about probability and expected impact.
       [/quote]
       Regarding the red bold....I think that annoying a guest is
       damage in and of itself, and would even posit that it can be
       "high level" damage to a relationship. We may be talking on
       separate planes (whether there is legal liability to pay damages
       or whether there is "damage" in a more general sense).
       #Post#: 56226--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: TootsNYC Date: August 19, 2020, 4:07 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I agree that damage can take many forms; it's not only about the
       money.
       #Post#: 56240--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Hmmm Date: August 20, 2020, 8:57 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Jem link=topic=1824.msg56225#msg56225
       date=1597869224]
       [quote author=Hmmm link=topic=1824.msg56195#msg56195
       date=1597786052]
       But the probability of their jumper damaging my clothes is
       pretty small or causing injury is pretty small. So those animal
       owners know there is a moderate to high level of chance their
       jumper will annoy a guest but not a high level that damage will
       occur in my opinion. Just like in my example, an adult knows
       there is a high probability of a cup following if set on the
       corner of a table.
       Liability to me is all about probability and expected impact.
       [/quote]
       Regarding the red bold....I think that annoying a guest is
       damage in and of itself, and would even posit that it can be
       "high level" damage to a relationship. We may be talking on
       separate planes (whether there is legal liability to pay damages
       or whether there is "damage" in a more general sense).
       [/quote]
       I think we are.
       Every action (or inaction) has an impact and usually some type
       of risk associated with it.
       Example:
       If I was to choose to only cut our lawn every 3 weeks, it would
       become overgrown and "unsightly" compared to our neighbors lawn.
       I know my choice will most likely annoy my neighbors but that is
       a risk/liability I am will to accept because I just don't care
       that much about my neighbors' opinions.
       However, if my lawn becomes overgrown, it could hide one of the
       sprinkler heads near a walking path between our driveway and
       lawn which can become a tripping hazard, but hey, I know where
       it is and no one ever really walks across my yard anyway to my
       driveway but me. Until the mail carrier decides to cut across my
       lawn, is looking at the mail, stumbles off the walking path,
       trips, and breaks her wrist. I'll most likely be liable for her
       medical bills and I would be morally responsible for creating an
       environment that could cause injury. But the probability that
       the mail carrier would decide to change her pattern of carrying
       mail and stumble upon the only sprinkle head that was hidden
       would have been such a low probability I might not even had
       thought of this potential risk.
       In this case, we know the dog owner has already decided to
       accept the risk/liability of annoying her friends. How do we
       know? Because she didn't train her dogs to not jump! She viewed
       the work to teach them to not jump as much higher cost to her
       than her fear damaging friendships. It won't be until the cost
       of having a jumping dog is greater for her that she'll start
       controlling the behavior.
       But she's not yet encountered those consequences. The
       probability of the dog causing damage that would cause her to be
       liable financially for damage is low so it is probably not a
       factor she evaluates when she is sub-consciously analyzing her
       actions.
       #Post#: 56275--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Too expensive to replace
       By: Elmore 2.0 Date: August 20, 2020, 9:52 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Would you feel capable of going back to your friend and ask if
       she's willing to put the dog up before you come over in the
       future? Maybe phrase it like "I'm sure you didn't know, but that
       would have been very bad if the dog ruined my blouse while doing
       you a favor."
       If you can something like that without an angry or accusatory
       tone, she may start doing that.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page