Dog "attacks" while with neighbor

[Sean R]

Jurisdiction

South Carolina

Backstory:
My neighbor likes to let my dog over in to his yard to play with his dog. He even went so far as to add a gate between our fenced yards to facilitate this.

The fences in both yards are 4ft scalloped picket. We realized about a year ago that my dog was able to jump both his and my fence. I took steps to make my fence jump proof, he did not.

Incident:
I am at home and let my dog out in to our back yard while I worked inside. My neighbor let my dog in to his yard to play with his dog. I am not sure if he was outside with them or went inside himself.

A person was walking on the sidewalk in front of our houses with her dog. My dog jumped my neighbor's fence and charged them. After some commotion, we are able to get my dog in my house, while my neighbor walked the person and her dog home. Both the person and the dog were fine, though shaken.

She eventually goes on to call animal control, who cites me for my dog being "at large."

Question:
Am I at fault, or is my neighbor?

My thinking is that though the dog is my property, he was in the care of my neighbor at the time of the incident, and so he is at fault. My logic follows that if my neighbor had borrowed (took possession) my car then caused an accident, he would have been at fault. As such, since my neighbor took possession of my dog and put him in an insecure place, he is liable for the dog escaping and anything that happened as a result.

Anyone have any thoughts on this - or any other - line of thinking? I plan on consulting with a lawyer next week, but wanted to get some general preliminary thoughts.

Thanks in advance,
Sean

 

[army judge]

You own the dog.
I suggest for the benefit of your finances, you cease allowing your dog to visit your neighbor, unless its on a leash and under your control.
A dog isn't a human being, its an animal.
You consider it a pet, perhaps part of your family.
The woman that was "shaken" by the incident involving your dog probably considers it a wild beast.

You know that the your neighbor's fence can't contain your animal.
You claim to have raised the height of your fence to prevent your animal from leaping short fences with a single bound.
Your neighbor didn't do so, because his beast doesn't leap short fences.

I suggest you simply pay the citation and agree to contain your animal properly on your own property.

Should you choose to plead not guilty and have your day in court, you have no defenses. I doubt that your neighbor will say he was dogsitting, and in some cities (mine for example), a dog must be on a leash even when she's upon her owner's property, unless the yard is fenced completely with a fence at least six feet tall.

As far as fault is concerned, animal control cited you, not your neighbor. I suspect their prevailing legal wisdom decided that your neighbor owed you no legal duty to control your beast. Your neighbor can't be cited as he's not the one in receipt of a citation. Besides, his animal did nothing improper, lest he would have been cited. The city believes you were at fault, not your neighbor.

Things could have been worse, had the woman or the child been attacked.

 

[Sean R]

From my understanding, a dog is viewed as personal property. Generally, whomever is in possession of that property at the time of the incident would be at fault.

If my neighbor comes on to my property, takes the keys to my car with my tacit permission, and then causes an accident with my car, I am not at fault, he is.

If my neighbor comes on to my property, takes a gun that I own with my tacit permission, and then robs a bank with my gun, I am not at fault, he is.

If both of those statements about personal property are true, then doesn't logic follow that when my neighbor comes on to my property, takes my dog with my tacit permission, and then allows it to do something illegal, I am not at fault, he is?

As for who received the citation, that is what this discussion is all about. I appreciate that the animal control officer's first instinct is to cite the owner of the animal. And in 99% of all the cases he has seen, it is probably the correct action.

But just as someone who is arrested for a crime isn't always guilty, the same could stand true here. A citation is an accusation, not a verdict, and an animal control officer is not a judge. He made a call based on what he understood the situation to be, but that does not make it the correct call in the eyes of the law.

 

[army judge]

From my understanding, a dog is viewed as personal property. Generally, whomever is in possession of that property at the time of the incident would be at fault.

If my neighbor comes on to my property, takes the keys to my car with my tacit permission, and then causes an accident with my car, I am not at fault, he is.

If my neighbor comes on to my property, takes a gun that I own with my tacit permission, and then robs a bank with my gun, I am not at fault, he is.

If both of those statements about personal property are true, then doesn't logic follow that when my neighbor comes on to my property, takes my dog with my tacit permission, and then allows it to do something illegal, I am not at fault, he is?

As for who received the citation, that is what this discussion is all about. I appreciate that the animal control officer's first instinct is to cite the owner of the animal. And in 99% of all the cases he has seen, it is probably the correct action.

But just as someone who is arrested for a crime isn't always guilty, the same could stand true here. A citation is an accusation, not a verdict, and an animal control officer is not a judge. He made a call based on what he understood the situation to be, but that does not make it the correct call in the eyes of the law.

Okay, good luck to you.
You've certainly got it all scoped out.
So, tell it to the judge.