Cesar Millan Sued In Pit Bull Attack

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
They could have told her to stay off the property and not let her anywhere near the dog.

Now, THAT would have been a valid lawsuit. A facility cannot refuse to return the dog to the owner. If they had kept the dog, they would have been breaking the law. As it was, they strongly advised her not to take the dog. That's all they could do.

Probably provoked the dog, woman couldn't handle training her own dog had to ship off so wtf, perhaps if that's the way you think pet ownership is suppose to be perhaps you shouldn't own known breeds of dogs with extremely high levels testosterone.


So she did the American thing and sued someone else, because person responsibility is for suckahz.

a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace

Wow, I guess I better let my son know, his 8 year old pit is seriously defective. He's never killed, wounded or injured anything. (except a shoe, does that count?)

From everything available on this story, the only person she should be able to sue is the dog owner, and in this case, that person should not even own this dog, maybe any. They knew what was wrong with this dog, yet brought it home? They are completely irresponsible when it comes to having this dog.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

According to the lawsuit the dog was in their custody...

They had every right to deny the owner thanks to the Court.





That's if the lawsuit is a true representation of the facts & not frivolous.


But any animal in their custody they have the final say.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Dimithae

But the dog was in the Center's custody...

They didn't need to voice concerns...

They could have told her to stay off the property and not let her anywhere near the dog.



Not sticking up for the owner at all here, but I'm not going to take away the responsibility that the Center bears either.

This is quite a complex issue, but doesn't the center have the responsibility not to allow a dangerous not-yet-trained dog out of the center, knowing full well the probable outcome? Should they have called the animal control authorities, at the very least, to ascertain if the dog was property to be legally handed over to the owner, or if they have a legal duty to protect society from this animal?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
According to the lawsuit the dog was in their custody...

LEGAL custody? Had she legally signed the dog over to the Center? I doubt it.

But any animal in their custody they have the final say.

I'm sorry, if they don't have legal custody, they cannot keep the dog without the owner's permission.

a reply to: InTheLight

I'm not too sure to be honest because there seems to be a contradiction in the two sides of the story...


On one hand they say they voiced concerns & recommended not to take him...

On the other hand the lawsuit says they had custody & therefore they are not obliged to release the dog without a court order...



I'm inclined to believe the second, because the dog would have been put down otherwise.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Doesn't ownership trump custody in the legal realm?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

From the source;
"Thereafter, Cesar Millan and his Dog Psychology Center, agreed to take over custody and control of the pit bull and not to release it until it was "fully deemed a safe member of society," the complaint said.



That sounds like legal custody.

Seems the woman is also suing the dog owner and the rescuer who saved the dog from being put down prior to the training at the center.

Bitney filed suit in California against her friend John Vazzoler, the Dog Psychology Center in Santa Clarita, Millan and a rescuer who'd previously saved the dog from being euthanized following an attack in Katy, Texas in February 2013.
...
The dog had previously been sentenced to die by a Texas judge in February 2014 after he attacked a trainer named Amber Rickles. The canine was in her care after its owner surrendered him for being 'nervous, growling and doesn't like children,' according to Bitney's suit.

'With the pit bull still attached to her left breast, Ms. Rickles backed into a laundry room where the dog released his grip, enabling Ms. Rickles to close the door. The pit bull then broke through the door and attacked Ms. Rickles a third time, latching onto her left arm and breaking it in two places,' reads the suit as obtained by Courthouse News.

Despite the horrific nature of the attack and the grueling surgeries and rehabilitation the suit says Rickles had to endure, Gus was rescued by the woman who'd originally brought him to Rickles, Jennifer L. Romano.

Source

We definitely don't know the whole story...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

That's the words of the person suing. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a fact. That's their story. I'd have to see the judge's order to determine.

a reply to: InTheLight

www.americanbar.org...

Disputing custody with the local government.
Once animal care and control or local law enforcement has taken your client’s animal, there are usually proceedings available to dispute custody.



This is all I could find in a web search... Sounds like the owner would have to dispute custody for the return of the dog.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm aware and I did say "if that's true"...

However, I'm inclined to believe it is, or the dog would have originally been put to sleep without such custody.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

If the center refused to give up her property (the dog) to her then would that not be considered theft? The center returned her property to her with a warning and with her knowing full well the animal was not improved in any way, and the responsibility and option left to her at that point would be for her to take the animal to animal control to have it put down.

a reply to: InTheLight

It would be considered theft if a Court Order said she could take the Dog...

That hasn't been said in the Source, so again I'm not too sure.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I would have released her property to her then called the authorities to report that I released a dangerous animal to the rightful owner and let them take it from there.

a reply to: InTheLight

Okay,having dog groomed for 15 years and having to know how the law works when it comes to pets,here it is:In almost all cases of dog ownership,the owners rights trumps the dogs,others and even the man on the street. Even if the center had called the police and had them come out,saying to them,this person is trying to take their dog and we deem it as dangerous.The police according to law,will tell them,that is their right as the owner and there is nothing you can do about it. When the dog actually does something,we can then intervene. In other words,simply knowing that a dog is dangerous is not enough,the dog has to actually DO SOMETHING for the law to get involved.Now in a common sense world,we would say,hey,its just too dangerous,no you can't have your dog,but the law doesn't work that way.

If the owner came and demanded their dog,the center had no choice but to give back the dog. Then when the dog does something,it is on the owner for not controlling the dog. Now if the owner did indeed sign custody of the dog over to the center,then they could refuse it,or if a court order stated that the center had ownership of the dog.

Now for the kicker,it varies from state to state,but once the dog has been involved in a 'serious' attack,here in Missouri once authorities are involved,rabies control then takes auto ownership of the dog,the person that was attacked at that point has final say right then and there with no court order on the fate of the dog. If they want it put down,rabies control takes it and puts it down,nothing the owner can do about it. We had just such a case before I quit grooming.

A Chow that was a known aggressive dog was scheduled for me that day,it never showed up,the owner of the shop wanted me to call the dog owners and see if I could get them in. I told her that if she wanted the money so bad that she would risk her groomers,then she could call them and do the dog herself. She was not happy with me.Money is always the driving force. But I saw all the warnings on that dog and knew how bad he was. Dog never showed up,but about 2 pm we get a call from another dog shop in the area asking if we knew the dog, I gave the phone to the shop owner and let her talk to them. The dog owners had decided they didn't want to pay the handling charges for a mean dog anymore and they would take the dog to another shop and just not tell them. So a groomer that only had 6 months of experience had the dog and it tore his face off.
As they were loading him up in the ambulance,rabies control was there and asked what he wanted done to the dog,and he said to put it down.The owners by now were there and said NO. Rabies control told them that they no longer had ANY rights over the dog since they had no control over the meanness of the dog. And took the dog away and put it down.

It is a shame because someone always gets hurt in these cases and the dog 9 times out of 10 loses its life. Not every dog can be rehabilitated,I have even heard Caesar Milan say the same thing a trainer I worked with years ago say,out of every 100 dogs you train,you will end up having to recommend to the owners that 2 of them are just too dangerous to mess with and need to be put down.Dogs just like humans can have mental issues and be dangerous or mean.Some of them will turn dangerous with little provocation,others need none at all. These dogs there is little hope for. They need to be removed before they change someones life for the worse.

The main thing is people need to understand that the cute fluffy little darling they get today,could have the potential to grow up and be very dangerous tomorrow.They NEED to take it to a trainer to help them have control over it. I have known people that were very good with training their dogs and needed no help at all,but most do.If you plan on getting a larger dog,or one known to have the potential to be dangerous,it is on the owner to make sure that dog is well socialized and corrected when it does something wrong.

a reply to: Dimithae

So, it appears that the center had no choice but to release the dog into the owner's possession, at which point upon taking possession of the 'known' dangerous dog, she is now the responsible party for controlling the animal.

a reply to: InTheLight

Exactly. Unless a court order took away ownership for the owner,which does not appear to be the case here.

a reply to: Dimithae

Thanks for the info.

This dog HAD attacked before, and the judge said the only way he'd let it go was if Cesar's Center took it. I don't know if there was a legal change of custody at that time, but I doubt it, or the center never would have released the dog to the person who brought it in. I've seen every one of Cesar's shows, many twice and some 3 times. He has occasionally taken ownership of a dog, but the owner signed it over to him to adopt to someone else after rehabilitation.