Off-Leash Dog Parks & Lawsuits

[cbrunny]

TL;DR:

- Can you get sued successfully if your dog causes any degree of harm [particularly very minor harm] to another individual in an off-leash dog park?
- What degree of diligence and consent is one assuming when entering a dog park? How does this extend to children?
- Never, under any circumstance ever, should you take a child to a dog park.

_____

My wife and I were at the off-leash dog park with our two siberian huskies yesterday. Our older dog is 3 years and is mostly out of the puppy phase, but still loves to run and play in the park as one would expect all dogs do. Our younger is a bit over a year, and is very much still a puppy. She loves the park and goes nuts with excitement when we get there. She runs to her hearts content. She is generally well behaved with the other dogs and people, but is a bit of a rude dog - hogging attention and not understanding differences in humans' behaviour. She adores children, which is the problem. She has never bit or attacked any person ever, but doesn't understand that children are smaller and weaker than adults.

An older woman - late 50s, early 60s perhaps - was there with her grand daughter - about 2.5 - 3 years. The woman was ~300ft away from her grand daughter when we arrived, and our dog took off to do a few laps. She spotted the girl and went over to say hi, licked her face, and the girl fell over crying. Of course, we felt terrible and booted it over to ensure that everything was ok. No scrapes, no cuts, no bruises, just a scary situation for a young child. I understand this is not a desirable situation fully. Appropriate discipline was provided to our young dog.

This happened again about 10 minutes later - woman is no where near grand daughter and our dog went to say hi. Basically the same thing happened again. Again, appropriate discipline to the young dog. The woman was understanding and not upset with us at all. As she said, our dog was being a dog. A rude one, but not a violent one.

It is my opinion that off-leash dog parks are absolutely not places for children, especially children that young and unsupervised. They are not controlled settings where children can become acquainted and socialized to dogs (all children should be, imo, but do it in a backyard with dogs you know). It is batshit insane to take a small defenseless child uncomfortable around dogs to a dog-park.

But its pretty clear to me as well that my dog is not innocent here, and thus neither am I entirely. So, what kind of liability am I taking on when I go to the dog park? Is it implied and assumed that dogs are there and active, and stuff like this may happen as a result of being there? What about it being a child unable to consent directly to being at the dog park? Could I be successfully sued if there was some degree of harm?

 

[Gunslinger08]

I agree that children shouldn't be unattended in a situation like that. The grandmother wasn't very smart in that situation, but you also shouldn't have left your dog off leash after it caused the first problem.

My assumption is that you are 100% responsible for the actions of your dogs when they are in your care. If the girl were to get hurt, you would still be liable if sued. It would be very tough for you to argue negligence on the part of the grandmother and get off without paying.

 

[z1ggy]

Not a lawyer here... But I pretty much think anybody can sue you for anything. I would gather that if your dog harmed another dog or person, despite it being an off-leash park, that you would be sued, and probably successfully.

Only reason I guess so is because despite you being in an off-leash park, one would still assume that there is a reasonable expectation of safety here. It's not like you are stepping into a doggy fight club or something. Additionally, there are no waivers anybody signs to legally say that any harm or injury occurred here is not liable on any dog owners or the town, etc.

I've seen the police called before at dog parks over dogs attacking other dogs. Not sure what the outcomes were though. I tend to not bring my dog their anymore...I've seen a dog kill another dog and I've seen plenty of dogs packing up and chasing down small dogs, too. Generally it's an OK place for socializing a dog, but it can bad quick.

 

[Jeeebus]

There is no uniform rule that is applicable throughout the USA, let alone in Canada. If you want a Florida specific answer, then there is a statute that provides strict liability if your dog bites someone - does not matter what the circumstances are.

 

[cbrunny]

The grandmother wasn't very smart in that situation, but you also shouldn't have left your dog off leash after it caused the first problem.

I had similar thoughts right after the first incident, but the woman was extremely kind about the situation. Based on that conversation I assumed she would take responsibility for the child, so I let my dog continue to run.

 

[cbrunny]

There is no uniform rule that is applicable throughout the USA, let alone in Canada. If you want a Florida specific answer, then there is a statute that provides strict liability if your dog bites someone - does not matter what the circumstances are.

I wouldn't expect anything uniform - really just wondering what is around there, so this is helpful.

I am not overly concerned about a dog bite per se, as much as I am about a situation similar to above. Probably the same outcome though, one would expect.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Right. While it's understood that you're accepting a certain degree of risk at a dog park, it's also understood that dogs at the park are expected to be properly socialized and reasonably well behaved.

Kid gets accidentally knocked over by a large clumsy dog, and scrapes her knee: no, I'm not siding with a suit there. Dog bites the kid: yes, you're liable. Certainly, there are many grey scenarios.

Your situation goes a little both ways. I totally agree off leash parks are no place for small kids, and you'd expect the grandmother to round up the kid. Unfortunately, she didn't, and your pup is a little over-eager around the kid so she needed to be back on leash, at least until they left. Sucks.

 

[SunnyD]

Did grandparent &/or child have dog with them? If not, they had absolutely no reason to even be in said park (assuming it was a dog park).

 

[cabri]

Did grandparent &/or child have dog with them? If not, they had absolutely no reason to even be in said park (assuming it was a dog park).

There are also parks that allow for pets to be off the leash. People who have no pets will also go to visit for the companionship of others or to just watch and relax.

As the poster above you stated, there is a responsibility that goes with being a pet owner.

If the person looks for trouble for with a pet, they they are expected to be at fault.

 

[Ns1]

I would have left the park with my dogs because that is a bad situation waiting to happen. Young Kids don't belong in dog park.

 

[waffleironhead]

This is the way I look at it. Your dog was not under voice command. Ran over kid. Your fault.

 

[Brainonska511]

I think it would still be your fault. If you're really concerned, make sure you carry liability insurance and be willing to put your dog on a leash or leave if someone else's safety (even if it is their own fault) is put at risk.

 

[Phoenix86]

I seriously doubt the law specifically protects you. What the law does is suspend the leash law, that's it. You're still liable for your pet. Huge YMMV here, because these are usually city laws.

That being said, it's a park where animals are allowed to "run free", and will not always be in control of the owner. Visitors, imo, accept some risk.

I'd agree with what gooberlx2 said in general. Once the animal draws blood, the whole "we were in a pet park" thing kind of goes out the window.

 

[cbrunny]

Interesting. Ok. So my own thoughts were not far off, relative to this group. Thanks, all.

 

[CPA]

It depends on your city ordinances.

I had a situation where my dog was leashed, a lady was told not to pet him, and when she didn't listen and did it, he got spooked and nipped her on the side. Sheriff was called and later Animal Control was came over to my house. I received a ticket (even though I was not there during the incident, but I was the owner of the dog) and was told I could be arrested. Fortunately, the lady knew my wife and we ended up just paying for a small doctor bill. No lawsuit.

My point, leashed or not, you are ultimately responsible for your dog's behavior, regardless of where he's at.

 

[rh71]

Grandma is being a dumbdumb for bringing a 3yo to a leash-free dog park. I wonder if mom and dad know.

 

[SunnyD]

There are also parks that allow for pets to be off the leash. People who have no pets will also go to visit for the companionship of others or to just watch and relax.

As the poster above you stated, there is a responsibility that goes with being a pet owner.

If the person looks for trouble for with a pet, they they are expected to be at fault.

Again, assuming this is an actual dog park and not simply a residential park (if it were the latter it would be regrettably stupid to not have a leash law in place for a multitude of reasons which have been historically proven over and over)...

I'm not arguing that the pet owner is responsible for the pet regardless of the setting. However there are levels of implied common sense at things like an off-leash dog park. And with that, my natural question for the other party is whether or not they had a dog with them, because if not I would immediately be suspicious of someone fishing for an injury lawsuit.

 

[smackababy]

Regardless of where you are, you should be liable for any injuries or damage caused by your dog. The only exception I could possibly think of is if the person injured was breaking the law; say, they broke into your house and your dog bit them, or they tried to mug you and your dog attacked them. Being in a dog park does not give pet owners the right for their dogs to misbehave and cause damage / injuries.

Your younger dog is not well behaved. You are also not "properly disciplining" her if she continues to have these kinds of problems. It could be an issue with just being socialized with smaller children, and therefore, not use to it, but if you are going to let her run free in a park where those kinds of little assholes might be, you had better get that dog under control.

 

[Cuular]

Until your dogs have been through obedience training, and obey you unconditionally, you have no right to let them off leash.

Any harm your dog does, accidently or otherwise, you are responsible for.

Especially when you know your dog has a thing for small kids, and will go up and meet/greet them in an uncontrolled manner. It's your responsibility to keep that dog on a leash until said distraction is no longer there.

 

[z1ggy]

Until your dogs have been through obedience training, and obey you unconditionally, you have no right to let them off leash.

Any harm your dog does, accidently or otherwise, you are responsible for.

Especially when you know your dog has a thing for small kids, and will go up and meet/greet them in an uncontrolled manner. It's your responsibility to keep that dog on a leash until said distraction is no longer there.

It's a dog park dude, most dog parks you have to let dogs off the leash. It's also dangerous to keep them on leash because if they get attacked, now they can't run away and may in fact become defensive and aggressive themselves.

Do you even have a dog?? (sponsored by, Do You Even Lift?)

 

[Gooberlx2]

Your younger dog is not well behaved. You are also not "properly disciplining" her if she continues to have these kinds of problems. It could be an issue with just being socialized with smaller children, and therefore, not use to it, but if you are going to let her run free in a park where those kinds of little assholes might be, you had better get that dog under control.

This is one of those grey areas where context matters, imo. Let's say the grandmother freaked out, called animal control and brought a suit (for, whatever, emotional distress or something). I'd call it frivolous.

A dog owner should be able to take their dog to a dedicated off leash park and not encounter unsupervised small children (which are often explicitly prohibited by signage). No real harm was caused, and one should reasonably expect puppies-in-training to be present at such a park. On the flip side, I would also expect the owner to have exposed/tested their puppy with children before being in an off leash setting, so if something more serious had happened, they are indeed liable.

In a different example, it wouldn't be fair to bring suit against an 8-week-old puppy when biting and teething is just what they do. One hopes that any responding animal control officer would recognize that.

I guess my point is, OP, that while you can hope for fairness, it's still best to cover your ass.

 

[smackababy]

This is one of those grey areas where context matters, imo. Let's say the grandmother freaked out, called animal control and brought a suit (for, whatever, emotional distress or something). I'd call it frivolous.

A dog owner should be able to take their dog to a dedicated off leash park and not encounter unsupervised small children (which are often explicitly prohibited by signage). No real harm was caused, and one should reasonably expect puppies-in-training to be present at such a park. On the flip side, I would also expect the owner to have exposed/tested their puppy with children before being in an off leash setting, so if something more serious had happened, they are indeed liable.

In a different example, it wouldn't be fair to bring suit against an 8-week-old puppy when biting and teething is just what they do. One hopes that any responding animal control officer would recognize that.

I guess my point is, OP, that while you can hope for fairness, it's still best to cover your ass.

I agree that there wasn't any damage done in this suit (and any lawsuit should be thrown out), but something more severe could have easily happened. The child wasn't unsupervised. The grandmother might not have been helicopter parenting the child, but she was there and able to see the child. It wouldn't be "fair" for someone to bring their teething puppy to an offleash park and he then bites and injures a child. I reasonably expect you to have a well behaved dog if you're going to let if off the leash and roam a park. Anything done by that dog IS your responsibility, regardless of what stage of training it is in.

OP, socialize your dog around small children before you let her off the leash again.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Young dogs need a place to exercise but when I get to the dog park and see particular dogs that have no boundaries or known to be aggressive with owners that aren't on top of them or see young children, I avoid going in or leave if they're coming in.

Thankfully, there's a soccer field next door which is hardly used where I can take my dogs and other owners who have their dogs are voice control use. We have another small off-leash dog park several blocks away that is ungated so it keeps a lot of the out of control dogs/owners from going to it.

After the first incident, I would have leashed my dog til the kid left b/c you can't control where the kid is going to go in the park or know if your dog is going to do it again. Better safe than sorry.

 

[cbrunny]

Again, assuming this is an actual dog park and not simply a residential park (if it were the latter it would be regrettably stupid to not have a leash law in place for a multitude of reasons which have been historically proven over and over)...

I'm not arguing that the pet owner is responsible for the pet regardless of the setting. However there are levels of implied common sense at things like an off-leash dog park. And with that, my natural question for the other party is whether or not they had a dog with them, because if not I would immediately be suspicious of someone fishing for an injury lawsuit.

It was a legitimate dog park specifically for dogs. It is a city-run off-leash area. The other party did have dogs.

 

[cbrunny]

I agree that there wasn't any damage done in this suit (and any lawsuit should be thrown out), but something more severe could have easily happened. The child wasn't unsupervised. The grandmother might not have been helicopter parenting the child, but she was there and able to see the child. It wouldn't be "fair" for someone to bring their teething puppy to an offleash park and he then bites and injures a child. I reasonably expect you to have a well behaved dog if you're going to let if off the leash and roam a park. Anything done by that dog IS your responsibility, regardless of what stage of training it is in.

OP, socialize your dog around small children before you let her off the leash again.

I'm glad you know so much about me, and my dog, and the park. Clearly you're the expert here, oh wise dog whisperer.

At no point did I try to deny responsibility. The thread is a legitimate question about what my level of responsibility is. I can accept that it may be 100%, but I value the input of others as well. Hence the question.

I will reiterate, though: Children do not belong at off-leash dog parks, period. There is no discussion or debate about this. They simply do not belong there.

Edit: I have no idea how you can claim the child was not unsupervised. A 2.5 year old child 300ft from their care giver in an off-leash dog park sounds to me like its pretty freaking unsupervised, regardless of if there are eyes directed at the child (there were not in both cases, fyi). I recognize that it may not matter, but lets not just make stuff up either.

Edit 2: Worth reiterating again, it is a legitimate city-run off-leash fenced in dog park with signage. In that situation, if you bring a child I expect you to maintain supervision of the child.