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.
4 comments:
Wouldn't homeowner's insurance cover this anyway?
I think that because dog attacks typically require extensive medical care, which costs far more than if your kid throws a rock through sombody's window, the insurance companies don't want to raise rates on everybody to cover the huge costs of dog coverage....just make it a separate policy.
Plus, dog ownership of attack breeds comes with far more legal liability than a child or poodle. Heck, they charge a lot for having a child on the policy, why not charge extra for having a particularly dangerous breed of pet?
A Rrrrider!
buy valium buy genuine valium online - buy valium without rx
Post a Comment