Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MAULING: Victim isn’t at all responsible

Letter by Frederick Z. Garvin, Lakewood on Aug. 16, 2013 at 1:07 pm with No Comments »
August 19, 2013 2:53 pm

Re: “Appeals court upholds $2.2M award in mauling” (TNT, 8-1).

Let me get this straight: A woman and her pet dogs are in her home, minding their own business, when a neighbor’s pit bulls, running loose, enter the woman’s home and kill one of her dogs, then severely maul her when she tries to intervene.

Though the pit bulls’ owner and Pierce County are found to be ultimately responsible for the attack, the victim is still found to have 1 percent culpability in the attack, since she should have known better than to leave the doors open in her own home when she knew that the dogs were known to run loose in the neighborhood.

By that “logic,” as a neighbor who lives within walking distance of Western State Hospital, can I be found at all culpable if a criminally violent patient escapes and enters my home through an open door or window and commits a crime against me or my family, since I should have known that the potential for such an attack exists simply by living in proximity to a mental hospital?

Is the victim of a pedophile at fault for being attacked. simply for living in an area with a large population of sex offenders and for leaving a door or window open on a hot day?

Why is the victim in this case even subject to the notion of being at any fault? Am I missing something?

Leave a comment Comments
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0