My dog injured by another dog.Looking for owners (Prospect Park)

This thing is a little odd to me. Obviously we don't know exactly what happend, but as a dog owner, I pretty much feel that we are accepting a fair amount of risk by letting our dogs run off-leash with lots of dogs, many that we don't know. If a dog was blood thirsty aggressive and the owner let it near another dog, I would definitely think they are responsible for any vet bills, but dogs run into each other constantly at off leash. All the time. If my dog hurt another dog (even in play they sometimes tear ears or get bad cuts), I would offer to pay or pay part of the bill, but when I got a dog I decided (consciously) that I was taking on any potential emergency vet visits.

What's really weird about this story is that they first posted it as a "run-in" injury (which sounds right with a broken leg) but have since changed it to "attack" or other vague terms in some reports. I also find it odd that they say they can't afford the vet bills but are offering a cash reward for info on the owners of the other dog.

Based on the various reports here's what I could imagine happening. First, both owners are breaking the law by having their dog's off leash at that time and it's pretty darn dark by then (even before DST) so the owners of the other dog may not have even known something happened. I've never seen a dog really injured by these collisions, but I've also never seen it happen to a dog with more delicate than average bones (I assume this is part of why whippet and greyhound owners tend to keep their dogs away from big dogs. Many I know have had multiple broken legs from mild injuries). They may not haven even known it was broken immediately and let the dog keep playing (dogs are tough). The owners of the other dog may know what happened but they may also have no clue the dog was injured and that there are now posters around the park looking for them.

I've seen some people saying that any dog that causes injury to another is the responsible one for any bills, but there are lots of shades of grey here. I've seen a dog start a fight but end up with the worse injuries. Is the dog (and owner) that was just defending itself really at fault?

It's a horrible situation for the owner this injured dog to be in, but I hope they aren't pinning all their plans on finding and getting the other owner to pay all of these bills. And hopefully they will consider pet insurance in the future.

Yea, this whole "off leash " thing works great.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/11/italian-greyhound-tali-attacked-by-pit-bull-mix-in-prospect-park-owner-needs-help/

People give even more money to such causes as we get closer to Christmas.

...if the dog was owned by a 6 year old girl, who cried on camera, it might make all of the chanels and really bring in the $.

Hopefully the dog gets it's vet bill taken care of...

The Nethermead, where they were, used to have off-leash hours in the evening but that was [sadly] ended years ago. Lots of people still go there, though, so there will be a handful of dogs playing off-leash many evenings. Personally I don't care that they do it, but if it went to court I wonder how a judge would view the case seeing that the dogs were not supposed to be off-leash to start with.

I believe it.

The "Victim" lets her dog run wild in a public place.

No.. I more meant the 14 or so other statements that begin with phrases like "i imagine, i assume, i would think, it's most likely...

You know, just the general vibe of everyone chiming in with gentle assertions based on zero fact.

winstonsmith said:

The "Victim" lets her dog run wild in a public place.

I knows. Dogs need to run. Unless this person lives on 3 acres of open field in Park Slope then you kinda have to let the dog 'run wild' in 'public'.

Delicious Rice said:

I knows. Dogs need to run. Unless this person lives on 3 acres of open field in Park Slope then you kinda have to let the dog 'run wild' in 'public'.

No, you don't "kind of have to" let the dog run loose, and this is what happens when people do.

Delicious Rice said:

No, you don't "kind of have to" let the dog run loose, and this is what happens when people do.

You also don't 'have to' own a dog... but if you do, you're a selfish dick if you don't let them 'run wild' a few times a week.

There are appropriate and legal places to do that.

There are appropriate and legal places to do that.

Really? Where?

Delicious Rice said:

No.. I more meant the 14 or so other statements that begin with phrases like "i imagine, i assume, i would think, it's most likely...

You know, just the general vibe of everyone chiming in with gentle assertions based on zero fact.

You know, just like people do on every other site on the internet. And in person.

Be careful you're not spending too much time here DR, when there's the rest of the world to correct.