Discussion in 'Dog News and Articles' started by Gempress, Dec 20, 2005.
HAHAHA! This one made me almost die laughing.
Wow...some idiots will try anything...
ROFLMBO!!! I LOVE that they got a pawprint from him to show he had been served Some people are SOOOO stupid.
I swear people will try anything.
I so wish I could be in the courtroom defending the dog.....
I'd get the plaintiff convict nice and riled up and then ask the judge for a break to let the defendant go outside to pee....
The last part about filing a counter claim is too, too funny
We had a couple we defended once with a similar case. They were a husband/wife truck driving team. They were travelling with their female dog, who was in season. They'd stopped at the weigh station to get checked and one of the officers had a male drug dog. Of course, the male dog zeroed in on their truck with the female in heat inside the cab. Of course, the officer refused to be shown that the dog was in heat and jumped at the chance to tear the cab of their truck to shreds - literally - on a slow, boring afternoon.
As it turned out, there were two hits of speed in the cab - not really a big deal, and the dog wasn't trained to spot on pills, just coke and pot (not to mention this particular dog had a very spotty record of accuracy - not more than 50%), so the case had to be dismissed as the search was illegal.
Haha, let's send him a bag of dog treats as a settlement! Too funny!
lol no send him a kennel,a dog bed, a bowl, a nyla bone and a bag of dog treats.
and a card that read reads
"Sob..... you cleaned me out of everything, I hope your happy....sob..sob "
lol might make him think different next time lol
LOL, like suing a jacket company for not being able to zip up his zipper LOLROFLMFAO!
Haa...what an idiot XD
ha, but did you guys here about the woman in Japan who tried to call the cops on a hitman that she hired to kill her husbands lover? They ended up arresting the hitman, along with the wife.lol
Well, the dog is a police dog. He was under the supervision and control of the police department. That makes him an "employee," such that the county running the police force can be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the conduct of the dog, provided it was in the course and scope oh his employment. Thus, if he can get a judgment against the dog, he can hold the county responsible, too. It is likely that the county would have insurance that covers the liability of its employees. So, he probably can try to force the insurance company to satisfy the judgment through a proceeding supplemental. Ain't the law fun?