Re: Pet policy | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: R Philip Dowds (rpdowds![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT) |
So: If your community allows a member's dog to run free, and said free-running dog rips the throat out of one of your visitors, the community shares in the liability. But ... What if your community is totally silent on dogs? That is, you neither allow nor prohibit any specific actions re dogs, cats, birds, snakes, whatever. It has never even occurred to you discuss the matter. Are you then still liable? RPD On Apr 24, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Sharon Villines wrote: > In DC we discovered that if we allowed a homeowner to have their dog "not > within their immediate" control and the dog caused harm, the whole community > was liable because we were in violation of the DC laws.
- Re: Pet Policy, (continued)
- Re: Pet Policy Ann Zabaldo, July 1 2006
-
Pet policy Fred H Olson, April 24 2012
-
Re: Pet policy Lautner, Patricia, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy R Philip Dowds, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Diana Carroll, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy Sharon Villines, April 24 2012
- Re: Pet policy R Philip Dowds, April 24 2012
-
Re: Pet policy Lautner, Patricia, April 24 2012
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.