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

Dangerous Dog Court: A jogger, a dog, and an electric dog fence

READ MORE: Dangerous Dog Court: A jogger, a dog, and an invisible fence
Bob Greene owns a 5-year-old lab mixed named Kujo. Rebecca Zumpe said Kujo broke through an electric dog fence and attacked her two months ago while she was jogging down a street with her own dog, which she had on a retractable leash. "I could tell where the fence was and he went right through it. It's like he stopped and went right through it with his teeth out,” said Zumpe. “I tried to move away from him. He hit me so hard that he completely knocked me down." Rebecca, a paralegal, fractured her ankle. She said she has missed two months of work and needs another surgery due to a torn meniscus. Bob Greene provided a witness who said Kujo did not attack, nor did the dog break through the electric fence. Marion Gaukey said the jogger tripped over her own dog while running. She said, "Her dog saw Kujo and he pulled her and she fell down." The panelists then debated the potential verdict. Joyce Bradley said, "I don't like the idea of the dog being out there without anybody with him. He's obviously broken through once before. The bad thing about the electric fence is your dog is defenseless if another dog gets on your property. If you're willing to put up a fence approved by animal control I'm willing to find the dog not guilty." The other panelists concurred. Rebecca Zumpe did not object because she only wants containment. Bob Greene was given 60 days to install an actual physical fence. The Dangerous Dogs Appeal panelists will skip December and hold their next session in January.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.


Six figures

This man( the owner) is playing with fire named Kujo I believe this dog did go through the fence and run into her. Just wait until that eye witness gets to court depositions and is questioned by an attorney. They will not be sure of anything they did ,or did not see. This dog court has nothing to do with the damages Ms. Zumpe will seek, and be entitled too.I see at least six figures just in mediation. You should have put up a real fence.

Your little ankle biter has

Your little ankle biter has inflicted more wounds on my profession than any "BIG" dog... So until you are willing to let me pull your Yorkies teeth.. I agree with Kujo, and you seem to be a settlement Digger! You will get yours in the "END". Hopefully it's Kujo!!!!!

Dog court

If you tripped and hurt yourself, would you really go through the trouble of going to dog not get any money and waste your time. If an invisible fence is not installed properly, it is very easy for a poorly trained dog to break out of it. I have a hard time believing there was no attack, the guy named the dog Kujo...he probably likes that his dog attacks people.


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.

It seems to me that if the

It seems to me that if the lab had actually caused her broken ankle and other problems as well as missed work, she would seek damages in court. Sounds like part of the story is missing.

Perhaps she is rare... the respect that she doesn't want to sue at every whim as most people today do. She is an apparent animal lover that just wants the dog restrained by a physical fence due to her experiences. Nothing at all wrong with that! Sounds like a reasonable win/win/win by all sides to me.

If the dog did indeed do all

If the dog did indeed do all the things she said, and she is losing work, animal lover or not, she certainly is not a winner. Seems to me she is entitled to lost wages and medical bills. The only winner I see is the company that installs the new fence. Something is not right here............