The first dog in my family when I was growing up was a pit bull. It should therefore be no surprise that I have a soft spot in my heart for pits as pets, and how I tend to get grumpy with municipalities that seek to ban pits because of incidents caused by the action (or inaction) of a handful of irresponsible/neglectful owners.
It’s a common refrain among pit bull lovers that bans are overkill, that owners should be held responsible for the actions of their pets.
According to an Insurance Journal article, Tennessee is doing just that:
This new law imposes liability on a dog’s owner for damages suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while on public or lawfully on private property. This liability attaches regardless of whether the dog has a history of vicious behavior or whether the dog’s owner had knowledge of the dog’s viciousness.
Thank goodness that some sanity prevails!
I’m sure that there are some critics of the law who would point out that it does nothing about keeping “dangerous” breeds as away from children and innocent bystanders as a ban would. I’d have to point out, however, that a ban would probably be no more effective in that regard.
I suspect that there’s a certain correlation between folks who would let their dog be aggressive to passers-by and who might seek out a certain breed of dog due to a certain kind of reputation…and folks who would tend to not heed breed-specific bans.
At least with a measure such as Tennessee’s, there is accountability that attaches squarely to the dog-owner, to serve as encouragement to be responsible, or to at least be liable to indemnify others for the actions of their pets.