Dumb judges make really bad dog legal rulings

The details of this dangerous Dachshund precedent can be found at the Daily Dachshund and Dog News.

2 thoughts on “Dumb judges make really bad dog legal rulings

  1. Maybe I’m reading the court ruling wrong, but the judge was only ruling according to that state’s laws on damages to personal property. The Plaintiff’s attorney is at fault for not specifying during the first trial that the pet’s value is deemed more than just property. Judges provide a ruling based on the arguments given during the trial by both sides.

    I just can’t believe the guy is getting away with only paying vet costs. He seems to be an unfit dog owner due to his negligence.

  2. Agreed that the plaintiffs’ attorney sucked, but judges are also supposed to be familiar with the relevant laws, and this was not some arcane statute but a pretty basic precedent of property law.

    Judges are supposed to administer justice not enable incompetent lawyers.

    In any case, here’s some advice form the Scottie News — always make sure you have a GOOD lawyer because you can;t do anything about the judge.

Comments are closed.