make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login


Let me get this straight. They are willing to find the dog wasn't guilty of breaking the barrier and attacking the jogger if the owner simply puts up a different fence? That hardly addresses the issue of whether or not the dog "attacked" the woman. Hell... the owner has a witness that directly contradicts the woman's complaint. Does she have one backing her story up? I also find it odd that she was "OK" with simply seeking to have the dog contained in a real fence, despite having received injuries and lost work. This whole thing seems fishy. It's like the dog has been deemed guilty and the owner negligent, considering the two potential outcomes. "Put up a fence to contain the dog who may or may not have escaped and attacked the woman." That's the same as saying they are guilty. "Don't put up the fence and we'll find you are guilty." Now they are saying it. This is ridiculous. That all said, I must agree that invisible fences are inherently insecure and really bad ideas. It just sounds like this case is not being decided on the merits of what happened and the evidence/testimonies presented.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.