Quote:
I respectfully disagree. I have read all the posts and if I have overlooked something ~ someone point it out and I will retract my statement.The lesson here should not be about money. I also disagree that this is a teaching moment that everything should be settled by $$$. We need to teach our children that taking responsibility is accepting responsibility. Teaching them to confront obstacles head on. Learning to talk it out, reaching agreements and doing what is right. I think it does children a horrible disservice to teach them that the way to settle things is hauling someone to court unless it is due to gross negligence and/or malicious intent.
Accidents happen ~ and I call this a tragic accident. I don't believe that either party was negligent. Dogs have been bred to satisfy the needs of humans. Lapdogs, guard dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, racing dogs, etc. and I believe that deep down inside every dog, they still possess the wild traits and instincts of their ancestors.
I don't believe for one millesecond that the owners of the GS had any idea that their dog was capable of doing what it did. I also don't believe that the killing of the chickens were caused by negligent or malicious intent by the owners of the GS. Which is why I believe it would be wrong to settle this through the courts unless they sue the OP for the loss of their dog.
Dogs, cattle, horses, goats, pigs, can and do get loose and leave their property on occasion. It happens. The majority would not fall under the catagory of malicious intent or being neglectful. Although some dog owners could fall under the catagory of repetitive negligence.
The proper thing for the neighbor to do, would be to contact the OP with apologies and go from there. It would also be proper if they have knowledge that their children were yelling from the street to march them to the OP and make them apologize for their behaviour. Unfortunately, we can't control how people are and how they raise their kids. What we can teach them, is that when they grow to be *hopefully* responsible adults is that they can reflect back and learn from their mistakes and that money is not always the solution but about doing the right thing.
Disclaimer: these are my opinions and in no way are intended to suggest that anyone else's opinion is wrong.
Since you ASKED:
Here is where you are wrong..........you say you dont think either party was negligent
The dog was not restrained, and destroyed the family's chickens. Do you live in an area where people are NOT responsible for their dogs? Because i would like to understand WHY you think that is not NEGLIGENT. Maybe you are not aware of the definition of the word
But the word negligent perfectly describes the owner of the German Shepherd. BTW, this is not my 'opinion' its in Websters.
I respectfully disagree. I have read all the posts and if I have overlooked something ~ someone point it out and I will retract my statement.The lesson here should not be about money. I also disagree that this is a teaching moment that everything should be settled by $$$. We need to teach our children that taking responsibility is accepting responsibility. Teaching them to confront obstacles head on. Learning to talk it out, reaching agreements and doing what is right. I think it does children a horrible disservice to teach them that the way to settle things is hauling someone to court unless it is due to gross negligence and/or malicious intent.
Accidents happen ~ and I call this a tragic accident. I don't believe that either party was negligent. Dogs have been bred to satisfy the needs of humans. Lapdogs, guard dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, racing dogs, etc. and I believe that deep down inside every dog, they still possess the wild traits and instincts of their ancestors.
I don't believe for one millesecond that the owners of the GS had any idea that their dog was capable of doing what it did. I also don't believe that the killing of the chickens were caused by negligent or malicious intent by the owners of the GS. Which is why I believe it would be wrong to settle this through the courts unless they sue the OP for the loss of their dog.
Dogs, cattle, horses, goats, pigs, can and do get loose and leave their property on occasion. It happens. The majority would not fall under the catagory of malicious intent or being neglectful. Although some dog owners could fall under the catagory of repetitive negligence.
The proper thing for the neighbor to do, would be to contact the OP with apologies and go from there. It would also be proper if they have knowledge that their children were yelling from the street to march them to the OP and make them apologize for their behaviour. Unfortunately, we can't control how people are and how they raise their kids. What we can teach them, is that when they grow to be *hopefully* responsible adults is that they can reflect back and learn from their mistakes and that money is not always the solution but about doing the right thing.
Disclaimer: these are my opinions and in no way are intended to suggest that anyone else's opinion is wrong.
Since you ASKED:
Here is where you are wrong..........you say you dont think either party was negligent
The dog was not restrained, and destroyed the family's chickens. Do you live in an area where people are NOT responsible for their dogs? Because i would like to understand WHY you think that is not NEGLIGENT. Maybe you are not aware of the definition of the word
Last edited:
