Friday, February 18, 2011
Owner of vicioius breeds should have dog insurance
In Texas there's a proposal in the legislature to force dog owners to have insurance on their pets. I assume it's for any damage or injury the dogs might cause to others. Normally I'd be against this sort of heavy-handed government intrusion, but owning a dog is pretty much the same as owning a car. They make you have insurance on a car solely because of the damage you might cause to others, why not make you take out a policy against the harm your dog will inevitably do?
I just read where a woman was mauled to death by two Rottweilers that didn't even belong to her. Then the dogs turned and attacked their owner when he tried to pull them off. So if the safety of others is the reason we have to get car insurance, why shouldn't owners of known-vicious dog
breeds have to get insurance for when they kill or maim somebody?
If a dog attacked my family or me, it goes without saying that the dog would be killed by me and the owner severely punished by me, but it would also be helpful if the owner had insurance to pay for my medical bills for the dog, and defense lawyer who'd be defending me against charges of aggravated assault with malicious intent to harm the owner with a baseball bat.