Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing and Dog Catchers

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 9 May 2012, at 6:42 AM, R Philip Dowds wrote:

> (2) The Association does indeed adopt a pet policy, and assigns the 
> responsibility for monitoring and enforcement to MB.  The dog goes wild, and 
> bites a visitor.  The visitor might have a claim against MB (which is 
> indemnified by the Association, so the claim is really against the community 
> as a whole).

In our instance it was a proposed pet policy that allowed dogs to run free on 
Association property, in conflict with DC law. Animal Control's interpretation 
of the law was that then the responsibility for the animal's behavior on our 
property as a result of being allowed to run free was transferred to the 
Association.

Since the Association would probably appear to have more assets than any of our 
individual members, a claimant would most certainly prefer to sue the 
Association, particularly with insurance companies penchant for settling claims 
rather than going to court. Our premiums would also be likely to skyrocket, if 
we remained insured at all, and the claimant, justified or not, would be the 
richer.

Again, my concern is not that there are angry vicious dogs out there. Cohousing 
communities would address this, I think. The problem comes when dogs defend 
themselves against perceived threats — such as a child stepping on them or 
hitting them with a stick. This can easily happen. Kids do stuff, especially in 
group gatherings where adults are busy talking to each other and oblivious of 
pets and kids. A dog on a leash is more easily and more likely protected from 
danger.

We have residents who oppose outdoor cats for the same reason, though more 
oppose them because they use our gardens as litter boxes. We grandfathered in 
the ones we have but will have no more. 

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org