Pit bulls: Inherently Dangerous?

By Patrick Weadon

This month, at the direction of the editor, a portion of the Voice’s opinion page has gone to the dogs, specifically, pit bulls.

In May, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled correctly (in this writer’s opinion), that pit bulls as a breed are “inherently dangerous.” Despite what many believe, the ruling does not ban the ownership of pit bulls in the state. What it does do, however, is make it very risky, from a legal perspective, to own one of these dogs.

The court’s decision seems perfectly logical to me, but in this day and age, every entity, no matter how superfluous, has some kind of support group. After the ruling, Presidential Pits, an advocacy group for owners of pit bulls, issued the following statement:

“Presidential Pits is dismayed by the ruling of Maryland’s highest court on strict liability with respect to pit bulls. Science and experience tells us the majority is wrong about the nature of pit bull dogs … and it is wrong to stigmatize all pit bull dogs based on the actions of individual dogs and people.”

I am not an attorney, but I believe I have a good understanding of the doctrine of “strict liability,” which as it relates to pets makes it clear that if you keep a man-eating lion in your garage and it just happens to escape and attack someone, you will be held strictly liable for whatever damages may result.

Put another way, “Those who engage in certain kinds of activities do so at their own peril, and must pay for any damage that results even if the activity has been carried out in the most careful manner.” (1)

But wait, you say. No one I know owns a lion, but many of my friends own dogs, so what does the law say if my dog, rather than a lion, bites someone? The answer is that, traditionally, injuries caused by domestic animals such as dogs and cats have not given rise to strict liability.

The question then is what defines a domestic animal?

An animal is considered domestic if it “is by custom devoted to the service of mankind.” It follows, then, that those who are interested in owning animals that can be said to “serve a legitimate social use” should not be discouraged by the threat of excessive liability.(2)

The question for the court then was whether pit bulls should be considered domestic animals. The answer, despite arguments to the contrary from groups like Presidential Pits, was that pit bulls, by their very nature, are dangerous and those who decide to own them are assuming a huge risk.

Pit bull ownership groups are not the only ones who don’t like this ruling. After the ruling, many of those of the conservative persuasion barked and woofed that decisions like this one prove Maryland is turning into a nanny state and a bunch of out-of-touch elitists in black robes should not be telling hard-working taxpayers what kind of dogs they can own.

That kind of thinking, however, is not really appropriate here. These dogs are bred to kill. Yes, I am sure there are examples of pit bulls that have never hurt a fly, but those examples don’t mean much when a mother or father has to pick up the remains of their toddler after one of these “domestic animals” has done their work.

The State of Maryland can make do without a great many things. Pit bulls are one of them. The court was right.

1. Emanuel Law Outline (1985),p. 245

2. Ibid, p. 246