Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

3 Comments

  1. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/560606/west-auckland-fatal-ram-attack-coroner-rules-no-inquiry-into-deaths-of-helge-and-gaye-hansen

    Compare this to the case where someone deliberately entered someone’s property through a shut gate which said that there was no entry, not held at fault? The Council found the owners of the dog that bit the person on the property to have a ‘dangerous dog’.
    Perversely the person trespassing on someone else’s property in Tasman was found to be at fault with though the dog was doing its protection job properly. Here an animal known to be in a savage mating state was allowed or enabled to trespass and no responsibility for it was held against its owners. Also why didn’t police use a tranquiliser gun rather than simply shooting the animal. It seems that the convoluted laws we have fail in fairness and good reasoning.

  2. Perversely I got the message incorrect above – the dog was found to be at fault, and the person was not, IIRR even rapped on the knuckles. It seems these days that everybody is responsible for everybody else. Freedom to wander around with mind in neutral is the game; viz? people walking in a forward direction studying something in their hand – don’t know what? Hah!

Comments are closed.