This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Louise M. Penery on 05 December 2007 - 18:12
There may be hope: http://www.nj.com/centraljersey/index.ssf/2007/12/state_lawmaker_visits_congo.html
If the dog is not found guilty, does the landscape illegal still collect damges from insurance?
by sueincc on 05 December 2007 - 19:12
I think it's kind of like this: Your kids best friend comes over to play. You have told this kid in the past not to tease the dog. When you are out of sight, the kid starts teasing the dog, the dog nips the kid on the face - bingo bango settlement time, even though it is not the dogs fault. It's the owners fault because since he knew what could very easily happen it was his responsiblity to put the dog up.
by sueincc on 05 December 2007 - 20:12
Sometimes I feel like I can't complete a sentence let alone a thought. Anyway, I think in that instance, the dog is not dangerous, the kid was stupid, but the owner is still negligent. SSDD!!!
by p59teitel on 06 December 2007 - 04:12
"If the dog is not found guilty, does the landscape illegal still collect damges from insurance?"
Yes, although the issue in the legal proceedings over the dog's future isn't really whether he is "guilty," but rather whether he is "dangerous" as that term is defined by New Jersey law. The lawsuit has already been settled, and the landscaper has already been paid the settlement. Generally speaking, about the only way an insurance settlement can ever be subsequently is on the grounds of fraud by the person receiving the settlement.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top