I understand the idea of being responsible, but that is really going overboard.
"The owner should be treated as if they were the one inflicting the harm." If a person attacked and bit someone, I'm pretty sure that would be considered assault. Essentially, every time someone gets bit by a dog, you think the owner should be charged with assault?
That would be battery, not assault and you'd have to prove intent, which would be difficult.
I think that should be treated the same as if someone was injured on your property. You should be forced to pay for any and all damages. Same as if the shed I built fell and broke the neighbor's leg because I didn't build it properly.
For more serious injuries, it should be treated like pedestrian accidents on the road. If no intent was there or if one wasn't grossly negligent, then civil court should handle the case. If the situation was caused by negligence, whether through lacking equipment necessary to contain the animal, care given to it, training, etc, the owner should be treated like a negligent driver. Similar to a death/injuries caused by a distracted driver.
I assume it's extremely rare when a person intentionally tries to harm another via their pet, but that should be treated like a murder case.
Afterwards, the animal should then be taken to a facility to decide if it can be re-trained and cared for properly by another owner via adoption. If not, unfortunately, the best thing to do is euthanize the animal.
Laws would probably have to be re-written to make this work well, but I hope I got my point across with the comparisons to existing law.
Edited by ATLL765, 13 August 2013 - 04:42 PM.