Dog Attack and poor form from the Rangers

[GraemeL]

My daughter, who is mentally handicapped was attacked by two dogs when she knocked on a front door.

Now let me say this first up, Chantelle did not provoke the dogs or owner in anyway, she was simply standing there waiting for the client to come out.

My ex wife is a full time carer and was picking up her client. My daughter went and knocked on the front door to let the client know they were there to pick them up, while the ex waited in the car.

The owner came to the door and allowed their two pit bull mix dogs to come out as well. The dogs immediately attacked my daughter, biting her on the legs, she screamed as the one of the dogs bit through her shoe and sunk its teeth into her foot, while the other was trying to bite other parts of her. She managed to climb onto a chair to try and get away but it didn't really help.
The ex wife said her vision was blocked by a large fence but heard Chantelle screaming out in pain. By the time she got to her two other people had pulled the dogs off.

Chantelle was taken to hospital and treated, thankfully the injuries were not severe and the main injury was a rather nasty bite to the foot.

The owner, who was there at the time, just stood by and did absolutely nothing to help my daughter or pull the dogs of her. They simply stood there and watched the the dogs attack and bite Chantelle.

The Ex called the ranger and they attended, BUT they told her that because the attack took place on PRIVATE property and that is where the dogs normally reside they are only going to issue an infringement.

I spoke to them and told them that it is a croc of crap and asked where in the Dog Act it states anything about private property.
The pathway leading up to any front door is legally considered Public Access.

I told them that I want the matter heard by a magistrate, but they refuse to prosecute the owner. I mentioned the fact that the owner has a legal obligation under not only the Dog Act but any other laws pertaining to visitors safety welfare. I also explained that they deliberately stood by and just watched on as my daughter was being attacked and did not attempt to stop it or render any assistance to my daughter. Even after the attack, they didn't even offer an apology.
The ranger still tells me that the owner will receive an infringement for the attack and another for unregistered dogs and that is the end of it.

I will not rest until the owner is dealt with properly and intend to write to the CEO and if no joy, our local member.

I wonder what would have been the outcome had the dogs got her around the throat. I also wonder what the outcome would be if it was a rangers child.
 




 

[Bird]

Go around there with a chainsaw, or a few Rumpsteaks loaded with fish hooks.

You could just call Current Affair. They would be onto this like stink on ****.

My bet is the ranger is mates with the dude and doesn't want to fine him

[Swannie]

Geez mate, what an horrendous experience for your daughter. Main thing is she is not severely hurt or worse.
Swannie

[Jeepers Creepers]

I hope your daughter is ok.

[DropBearRacing]

Sorry mate to hear your young girl was attacked. I hope she makes a full recovery soon.

[scarps]

Mate that's really sad to hear about this. I hope your daughter makes a full recovery and doesn't go through the rest of her life scarred by this event. All the best to your family.

[JCOJ]

Really sorry to hear and wishing your daughter all the best and a quick recovery.

Hope karma bites this guy on the backside!!

[GraemeL]

Thanks everyone, we are lucky it isn't more serious.

I have had dogs for most of my life and I understand that sometimes things happen that are completely out of character for the dog. Although you do your best to make sure these things don't happen, sometimes it just does, for what ever reason.
It if was a case of the dogs getting out ahead of the owner and just scaring her or lightly nipping her and the owner did what most of us would, act immediately to stop it going further, I would not have had a problem with that.

It's the fact that they just stood there and watched even though my daughter was screaming out in pain while the two dogs were biting into her. I really cannot understand how anyone could do that?

I informed the ranger that I intend to fight them all the way and that I will not rest until it is heard by a magistrate. I am not after any form of payment or compensation.
I want it to go to court and have a magistrate determine the appropriate fines/punishment, once he has all the facts. It makes no difference what the court orders, at least I know that everything that could be done, has been done.

[fuji]

Graeme
Where are you located?  PM me. If you are in Melbourne I might be able to help.
Wayne

[krisandkev]

have you obtained legal advice from a solicitor? You may have to take your own action. You say the owner is a client, do you mean he may have a disability?  Kevin

[edz]

Heres hoping the young one can recover well from this and not just the physical injuries, All the best to you guys ..

[dazzler]

Hi Graeme

As you may recall I managed a Local Government Regulatory Services unit for a fair while.

How much is the infringement notice?

A few things and don't shoot the messenger here.

The decision as to whether or not to prosecute is one for the team leader of the unit based upon the circumstances. 

Invariably the two sides of the story will differ and the TL needs to work out what will happen in court if it gets there.  Straight away I can see a number of defences and issues that would make it a worry to send it to court just on what has been written.  Apologies if I get some of it confused.  If it goes to court most people would get representation so some of this is what you would expect the defence to raise;

1. If your ex was there in a work capacity then it is a workplace safety issue. They would raise the fact that they were not expecting a 'child' to attend but an adult.  Had they known a child was coming they would have secured the dogs.

2. If it is a workplace the 'tacit consent' to enter the property is no longer there as the reason your ex was there was for work.  She has brought her daughter into the workplace and then not supervised her whilst she was there.

3. It sounds like the only witness on your side will be your daughter?  Would you want her to go to court and be cross examined?  It sounds like there would be two adult witnesses against your daughter.  I guarantee you they would collude and make a story up that would make them look good and your ex look bad.

4. The attack is not a 'serious' one according to the definition under most of the DCA's around the country.  To be serious it generally needs to be a tearing laceration or one requiring stitches.  Could be different where you come from.  If it is not a 'serious' attack as defined under the act then the magistrate will treat it as an attack inside their home (I kind of got the idea that your daughter must have been inside to jump on a chair?) with a non serious injury and unless they have been in trouble for a similar offence in the past probably give them a 556a proved no conviction or proved and a small fine.

My experience with this is that generally the infringement is more than any fine the magistrate gives.  Here is an example - we fined a bloke over $6000 for removing protected trees on his property.  He went to court, found guilty and fined $800.  If the fine is over $560.00 I would be pretty confident that will be more than they would get in court.

I see that Fuji has sent you a PM. Hopefully he can help out but if you need more send me one and I will give you my number.

Apologies if the above sounds heartless it is reality (at least how I have seen it).

Best of luck.

Daz

[chester ver2.0]

Please once again do not shoot the messanger, but Daz is right in the sence that if part of your Ex wifes documented job description is to pick up and or drop off clients then the houses she goes to technically become and extension of her workplace so herself or the company she works for need to provide a safe system of work to manage this.

In your case a visitor (your daughter) has entered the workplace (your ex wifes scope of work) and has tragically sustained an incident, so there is a lack of supervision argument there

Now the way around this may be for example if your Ex wife or the company your Ex wife works for sends instructions to clients for picking up and dropping off e.g a letter mentioning that the environment in general must be safe, no dogs, carer will not enter clients home etc. In this case there is some onus on the clinet (owner of the dogs) as they have agreed to a work system that would apply to your Ex wife and by extension a visitor (your daughter)

Speak to your Ex and if
1. she is expected to pick up and drop clients off and this is documented
2. There is some process or procedure in place for attending clients houses even if dogs are not mentioned specifically

If the above are in existance i would then speak to a workplace laywer for further advice

Please take this as general summation only

In the end it is a terrible incident that i personally cannot comprehend as coming from a farming background if one of the dogs did an unprovoked attack on another person it would be the long ride to the back paddock without hesitation

[D4D]

Tragic situation. Pit bull owner, enough said.

[Black Diamond]

Shocking situation. Owners fault as simple as that.

[Mace]

Shocking situation. Owners fault as simple as that.

Tragic situation. Pit bull owner, enough said.

Yes, agree, tragic, but yours are both simplistic replies that don't aid the issue or help people learn. Why was child there? Had the same arrangement been in place prior? Were dogs usually there?

Time for all to step back and think before posting.

[D4D]

OK I've stepped back and had a think. It's not the breed, it's the owner, what a load or garbage. The origin of the pit bull is for blood sports therefore the breed is genetically predisposed to fighting. It serves no purpose in modern society and should not be allowed to be bred or kept as a pet.

[Black Diamond]

Yes, agree, tragic, but yours are both simplistic replies that don't aid the issue or help people learn. Why was child there?

Time for all to step back and think before posting.

The owner should have known better. The poor little girl has every right to knock on a door without feeling she's at risk of being attacked by dogs. I have a little staffy and if she ever attacked a child for no apparent reason i would put her down myself if the council didn't. Let's get things straight here. She didn't enter the house and invade their territory, and just say she did the owner should have been smart enough to isolate them.

[rockman]

without being rude ... how can you be sure it was a pit bull ?.... quite over the whole pit-bull crap and i have never owned one , just the generalization by the misinformed
i have been bitten by 2 dogs in my life , a blue cattle and a maltese ,

hope you daughter has a full recovery

Tragic situation. Pit bull owner, enough said.

[GraemeL]

Graeme
Where are you located?  PM me. If you are in Melbourne I might be able to help.
Wayne

Thanks but I am in WA.

Dazzler and Chester, thank you both.

I understand what you are saying and they are very valid points and certainly something to not only take on board, but also to dig deeper in order to get the facts straight.
Especially the part about my daughter going to court. In the heat of the moment, I hadn't really thought about that. It is something I will have to talk over with Chantelle and the ex. I will also have to discuss the fact that she was there in a work capacity and find out where her employer stands in all of this.

The client does not live at the house, they are not normally there, I am not sure what happened but according to my EX, the client was not supposed to be there. She was warned by my ex's employer (after the attack), that if she went there again, the police would be called. I don't know why or what the concern is regarding the house owner. The ex wasn't aware of the above until after the attack. I am only receiving information via my ex, whom I trust, she is not one to let emotions get in the way of facts.

The chair was at the front of the house on the outside.

I live in Perth and my daughter lives in Kalgoorlie. I have spoken to the senior ranger for my shire and explained everything to him, including the fact the ex was there to pick up a client, he said that if it happened here, there would be no doubt, it would be a prosecution. He also said that he is unable to give me legal advice, which I understand. But he went on to explain other similar situations, one was where a person went to a home to measure up for some blinds and was attacked inside the house, the result was prosecution.
Another where a postie knocked on the front door and was attacked, but no broken skin, again another prosecution.

He told me not to let them issue the infringement and to fight to have it sent to court.

I am formulating a letter to the CEO of the Shire in question, I will wait for their response and in the meantime I will need to discuss the possibilities with my ex and Chantelle.

This is from the Dog Act 1976 Section 33D

If a dog attacks or chases any person or animal and physical injury is caused to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.

        Penalty:

            (a)         for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $20 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $1 000;

            (b)         for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000.

        (2A)         If a dog attacks or chases any person or animal without causing physical injury to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.

        Penalty:

            (a)         for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $500;

            (b)         for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $3 000.

Thanks again to everyone for your kind words.

[dazzler]

I think they mean pit bull 'type' dog.

There are very very few American Pit Bull Terriers in Oz.

And as you allude to ,I think, is all dogs bite.  Bloomin fox terrier crosses were the bitiest in our area.
   
Hope your daughter is well Graeme.

[Mace]

Bd,D4D, Yep, agreed with all you have said.

I would do the same with my dog. Bullet!

However, unless pre planned I wouldn't send a child for a pick up.

Sorry, but IMO both of your replies  over simplified the topic after two extremely valid replies from Dazzler and Chester.


Get well soon Chantelle.

[D4D]

how can you be sure it was a pit bull?

The owner came to the door and allowed their two pit bull mix dogs to come out as well.

[rockman]

you are correct dazzler
i have had large guard type dogs all my life
if one was to bite a child , i would put it down in minutes myself 
on saying that , if you enter my property through a gate that has a sign on it warning of private property and guard dogs are present

I think they mean pit bull 'type' dog.

There are very very few American Pit Bull Terriers in Oz.

And as you allude to ,I think, is all dogs bite.  Bloomin fox terrier crosses were the bitiest in our area.
   
Hope your daughter is well Graeme.

[GraemeL]

The dogs in question are pit bull mix.

I don't blame the dogs, we don't know how these dogs are treated.

I blame the owner, as far as I am concerned, they have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control at all times and if they attack someone for what ever reason, they wear the consequences.

I agree with others, if my dog attacked someone, it would be put down without question. I would also be prepared to face what ever legal action was leveled at me because of it.

As I said earlier, I cannot for the life of me, understand how anyone could stand there and watch their dogs attacking someone and not raise a finger to help.

I just hope that they get what is due, that's all nothing more and nothing less.