A New Year-Time for Reflection-Not Ne...
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#50 Jan 9, 2013
http://www.texashill.com/RealEstateInfo/dog.h...
Cont'd

Two Narrow Defenses
Strict liability, sometimes referred to as liability without fault, imposes a high standard of care on animal owners and keepers. The courts recognize two narrow defenses. The first involves the legal status of the injured party, the other the assumption of the risk.
Case law does not clearly describe what duty owners and keepers of wild and domestic animals have to protect trespassers. Generally, landowners owe no duty to trespassers except to avoid injuring them willfully, wantonly or through gross negligence. However, landowners may use force in self-defense and to protect property from criminal mischief at night.
Consequently, if a vicious guard dog attacks a trespasser who has entered a property to injure the occupants or to steal their property at night, no liability arises. However, if a vicious dog bites a trespasser during the day within a fence designed to contain the animal, the court could find the owner liable for gross negligence. More definitive rules are needed in this area. So far, no Texas appellate cases have held the owner or keeper liable for attacks on trespassers within an enclosed area designed to contain the animal.
The other defense, the assumption of the risk, causes considerable confusion. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that the assumption of the risk is no longer a valid defense to strict liability. However, subsequent appellate cases appeared to disregard the high court's decision. Eventually, the courts clarified the issue by recognizing two distinct types of assumption of risk, express and implied. Only one constitutes a valid defense to strict liability.
An express assumption of the risk occurs when a person consents orally or in writing to take responsibility for exposure to potential injury-causing conditions. These take on the form of save-and-hold-harmless agreements as consideration for entering property. This type of agreement is common to sporting activities - a person signs an assumption-of-risk agreement as a condition to participate in a sporting event. An express assumption of the risks is a valid defense to strict liability.
An implied assumption of the risks is not a valid defense. An implied assumption occurs when a person's willingness to take responsibility is indicated by his or her actions and conduct. For example, if a property owner posts a "Beware of Dog" sign at the entry to the property, anyone entering impliedly assumes the risk by his or her conduct.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#52 Jan 9, 2013
http://www.texashill.com/RealEstateInfo/dog.h...

Cont'd

Generally, the dog was chained on the side of the house during visits, but it was not chained on the day of the attack. A friend came over to play with Georgina, the tenant's daughter. Because the dog was loose, Georgina instructed her friend to distract the dog in front of the house so Georgina could safely exit through the back gate. The friend complied, but the agitated dog jumped the fence and bit the friend numerous times. The friend's parents sued both the tenant and the landlord.
At trial, evidence indicated the landlord, who was working on the roof at the time, heard the dog barking, but he did not see the dog nor have any knowledge of its dangerous character. Even so, the trial court held the landlord partially liable for negligence. On appeal, the landlord was exonerated.
A landlord of a single-family dwelling is liable for injuries to a third party when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal's presence on the property and its vicious propensity and has the ability to control the premises.
What is interesting about this case is that the appellate court required prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity even though the case was based on negligence, not strict liability. Evidently, prior knowledge is now required in instances in which landlords of single-family dwellings are sued for negligence.

Fambrough (judon@recenter.tamu.edu) is a member of the State Bar of Texas and a lawyer with the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.
put up or shut up

North Richland Hills, TX

#53 Jan 9, 2013
MaryRoseSmith wrote:
http://www.texashill.com/RealE stateInfo/dog.html

Cont'd

Generally, the dog was chained on the side of the house during visits, but it was not chained on the day of the attack. A friend came over to play with Georgina, the tenant's daughter. Because the dog was loose, Georgina instructed her friend to distract the dog in front of the house so Georgina could safely exit through the back gate. The friend complied, but the agitated dog jumped the fence and bit the friend numerous times. The friend's parents sued both the tenant and the landlord.
At trial, evidence indicated the landlord, who was working on the roof at the time, heard the dog barking, but he did not see the dog nor have any knowledge of its dangerous character. Even so, the trial court held the landlord partially liable for negligence. On appeal, the landlord was exonerated.
A landlord of a single-family dwelling is liable for injuries to a third party when the landlord has actual knowledge of the animal's presence on the property and its vicious propensity and has the ability to control the premises.
What is interesting about this case is that the appellate court required prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity even though the case was based on negligence, not strict liability. Evidently, prior knowledge is now required in instances in which landlords of single-family dwellings are sued for negligence.

Fambrough (judon@recenter.tamu.edu) is a member of the State Bar of Texas and a lawyer with the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.
Wow.....22 posts in a row by MRS with nobody talking back to her. That's impressive. Even for a schizophrenic.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#54 Jan 9, 2013
put up or shut up wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.....22 posts in a row by MRS with nobody talking back to her. That's impressive. Even for a schizophrenic.
It's called education - there is no need for a response - so why are you responding? Just couldn't contain yourself?
put up or shut up

North Richland Hills, TX

#57 Jan 10, 2013
MaryRoseSmith wrote:
<quoted text>It's called education - there is no need for a response - so why are you responding? Just couldn't contain yourself?
Just don't feel I need to be educated by you.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#58 Jan 10, 2013
put up or shut up wrote:
<quoted text>
Just don't feel I need to be educated by you.
It's a free country - you are free to skip and not read.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#59 Jan 10, 2013
Ladies and Gentlemen -

You may agree with the no-kill organizations or disagree or your feelings may lie somewhere in between or maybe you just don't care one way or the other, irregardless the majority of the public has no idea what it really means for a shelter to go no-kill.

The animal people are cult followers of the no-kill guru Nathan Winograd, did they investigate him or his methods? I doubt they did - they just blindly follow. Their actions at city council meetings and their opinions and accusations published by the left-wing local media have caused the city, the shelter, and most important of all, the animals irrefutable damage. The previous shelter director was run off by these people - why?- because un-adoptable animals were euthanized for space and no other reason. The new "director", an IT person with no experience in shelter operations, made a mess of the shelter and produced a horrendous example of sheltering animals. All of this was done in an effort to appease the no-kill activists.

So what do you do? Continue to appease these people at great cost to the animals and the taxpayers? As you can see from the article concerning Austin's attempt to go no-kill, the cost of running an animal shelter has sky rocketed, their shelter stays stuffed, their shelter employees are overworked, even with the so-called volunteers. When do you say enough is enough? When your property taxes are so high you can't afford to live here? When all tax revenues go to "saving" the animals instead of going for water and sewer maintenance, street maintenance, and other much needed improvements to the city?

Speak out to the city officials and let your opinions be known, unless of course you are afraid of being branded politically incorrect and an animal hater.

&#12288;

&#12288;

&#12288;

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#60 Jan 10, 2013
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/14977_6-myths-...
6 Myths about Animal Shelters, SPCA's etc.
1.
"Shelter Pets are Mean or Have Problems". Shelters do not want to adopt out a mean or dangerous pet, especially when there are so many nice ones in the shelter for no fault of their own. Shelters will euthanize any pet they feel is unsafe for adoption. Some pets are in the shelter simply because the owner was forced to move and could not take the pet with them, the owner died, or some other situation, it is not always the pets fault. One thing people need to know when they get a dog from any situation, it should attend Obedience lessons, shelters sometimes offer discounts for these lessons.
2.
“If Shelters Really Cared, the Pets would be Free!”. Animal shelters are non-profit. This does not mean they can afford to give animals away for free. Shelters have to pay bills too, this not only includes the veterinary bills on the animals, but also the power bills, building rent, and so on. Some will say people are more committed to pets they paid for, and while this is is not the only reason why shelters charge what they do. Every shelter has different “adoption fees” according to their expenses. Some shelters are able to give away pets in some situations, as with senior animals who would normally be euthanized. Some shelters have “barn cat” programs where they adopt out, for free, feral cats who are fixed and suited for barn cats. If shelters started giving away all their pets, for free, they would soon have to shut their doors and close down.
3.
“If the Pet came in as a Stray you should not Adopt it because it will Just Run Away Again". Many shelters ask for people to pay to relinquish, or surrender, their pets, so people wishing to avoid paying often say they found the pet, and it was a stray. This is actually harmful to the pet. Shelters treat strays differently than owner relinquished pets. A healthy pet surrendered by its owner, can often go into the adoption program fairly quickly. A stray pet must remain in a cage to see if an owner is going to claim it, this stresses the animal out more. Ultimately when people come to adopt pets, they are more likely to adopt one that has a known history, rather than a stray. Some shelters get so many owner surrendered pets, they do not even put the unclaimed strays up for adoption. When you surrender your own pet, you can tell the shelter its name, its likes and dislikes and if it has had any medical history. All these things make your pet more likely to get a new home. A stray should be admitted as a stray, in hopes its owner will find it, but your own pet, should be admitted as your own pet. Even pets that did come in as strays are not always pets that run away, sometimes a stray is a pet that was abandoned by its owner.
4.
“No Kill Shelters are Better”. No-kill animal shelters profess that they do not euthanize any animal, but if you think about this, it is not realistic. It means they are keeping animals alive in a shelter situation which they may not enjoy, and it means they are turning away a lot of animals because, as we all know, more animals are born than there are homes for. If they are not euthanizing the animals, it only means, somebody else is. I would certainly not discourage anyone from adopting from a no-kill shelter, but a person who is looking for a pet should look at other shelters too, rather than frowning on them because they are forced to do the dirty work as a result of people who have not spayed or neutered, their pet.
5.
“Cats and Dogs Only”. Shelters often also get other animals, hamsters, rabbits, and birds. I have even seen pot belly pigs, and pheasants in animal shelters. They are the best place to look when you want a pet. Often the smaller animals come with their cages or they may be available at a lower cost.
Cont'd

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#61 Jan 10, 2013
http://www.bukisa.com/articles/14977_6-myths-...

Cont'd

"Shelters Kill Pets". Some times people are scared to turn a stray pet into the shelter for fear that they will kill it. In truth, by law, shelters have to wait a required number of days in hopes that the rightful owner will claim the pet. The law does allow a shelter to euthanize a sick, injured or mean pet after a specified amount of time, usually 72 hours. This does not mean all pets are euthanized this quick. If a pet is considered adoptable, the shelter will have it checked by a veterinarian, vaccinated, and dewormed before putting it up for adoption. Once this investment in the pet is made they are not in a hurry to "kill" any pet. However after a while pets get stressed and shelters get crowded, so in many cases when there are more animals coming in, those who have been there for a long time will get euthanized to give the others a chance. It is a myth that they euthanize all pets after 3 days (which is what I often hear people saying). Even with the 72 hour rule, most shelters only have the vet come once a week (not daily). Shelter staff do not enjoy euthanizing animals, it is only done if they have to.
Shelters exist because we have a need for them, they exist to try to reunite lost pets with their owners, and to find new homes for those who were surrendered. Without animal shelters we would have thousands of homeless pets wandering the streets in seach of food, packs of dogs would prey on livestock and threaten children. The goal of animal shelters is to reduce the number of unwanted pets coming through their doors every year, as such they encourage owners to spay and neuter their pets, and not to rush into getting a pet on a whim.

Shelters exist because we have a need for them, they exist to try to reunite lost pets with their owners, and to find new homes for those who were surrendered. Without animal shelters we would have thousands of homeless pets wandering the streets in seach of food, packs of dogs would prey on livestock and threaten children. The goal of animal shelters is to reduce the number of unwanted pets coming through their doors every year, as such they encourage owners to spay and neuter their pets, and not to rush into getting a pet on a whim.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#62 Jan 10, 2013
Adopt from The Weatherford/Parker County Animal Shelter!!!!

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_adoptio...

There are many misconceptions about the quality of animals found in rescue shelters. The stigma that shelter pets have been stuck with for many years is that they are "damaged goods".

Myth: Shelter pets are obviously not good pets, or else their original owners wouldn't have gotten rid of them

If the main reason why a pet gets brought to rescue shelters was because they were a *bad* pet, there would be thousands of empty shelters across the country. Animals are brought to shelters for a large variety of reasons, some of which are...
•Their owners have passed away
•An irresponsible owner didn't get their pets spayed or neutered so they found themselves with a litter of babies that they could not keep or did not want
•The animal's owners were abusive to the animal, so the authorities have removed the pet from the harmful environment
•An animal was purchased or adopted by someone who did not take into consideration all of the responsibility that caring for that pet would entail. A good example of this would be someone who adopts a pet in an apartment complex that does not allow animals and then is subsequently forced to get rid of the pet.

Myth: Animals from abusive homes will never be good pets because they have been mistreated for so long

Most animals coming from abusive homes will typically make a full emotional recovery - with proper care and attention. In fact, many of them are so grateful to be rescued from their previous situation, they end up being more devoted and loyal than animals coming from non-abusive homes.

Myth: You never know what you're getting with shelter pets

Although its true that the medical history and temperament of an animal adopted from a rescue shelter are not always able to be tracked down, its really no different than an animal you might get from a pet store, unless you are buying a pedigree.

Myth: All animals in rescue shelters are sickly or unhealthy

Once again, it certainly IS possible that a pet adopted from a rescue shelter may have medical problems, however the majority of the animals that are adopted from shelters are perfectly healthy, and just need a good home. If anything, you're more likely to get an honest answer about an animal's medical problems from a shelter volunteer - who is clearly there because they *care* about the animals - as opposed to a pet store owner or breeder that is only it in for the money. Additionally, animals in shelters are typically treated much better than animals in pet stores, which have often spent their short lives in cramped environments with little socializing and often, unsanitary conditions.

To illustrate the point a little more clearly, when you go to a pet store, the animals are kept on display in tiny cages, often with multiple animals in one cage. When you go to a shelter, you will usually find much bigger animal pens, where the animals have some room to move.
put up or shut up

Lockhart, TX

#63 Jan 10, 2013
MaryRoseSmith wrote:
Adopt from The Weatherford/Parker County Animal Shelter!!!!

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/animal_adoptio...

There are many misconceptions about the quality of animals found in rescue shelters. The stigma that shelter pets have been stuck with for many years is that they are "damaged goods".

Myth: Shelter pets are obviously not good pets, or else their original owners wouldn't have gotten rid of them

If the main reason why a pet gets brought to rescue shelters was because they were a *bad* pet, there would be thousands of empty shelters across the country. Animals are brought to shelters for a large variety of reasons, some of which are...
•Their owners have passed away
•An irresponsible owner didn't get their pets spayed or neutered so they found themselves with a litter of babies that they could not keep or did not want
•The animal's owners were abusive to the animal, so the authorities have removed the pet from the harmful environment
•An animal was purchased or adopted by someone who did not take into consideration all of the responsibility that caring for that pet would entail. A good example of this would be someone who adopts a pet in an apartment complex that does not allow animals and then is subsequently forced to get rid of the pet.

Myth: Animals from abusive homes will never be good pets because they have been mistreated for so long

Most animals coming from abusive homes will typically make a full emotional recovery - with proper care and attention. In fact, many of them are so grateful to be rescued from their previous situation, they end up being more devoted and loyal than animals coming from non-abusive homes.

Myth: You never know what you're getting with shelter pets

Although its true that the medical history and temperament of an animal adopted from a rescue shelter are not always able to be tracked down, its really no different than an animal you might get from a pet store, unless you are buying a pedigree.

Myth: All animals in rescue shelters are sickly or unhealthy

Once again, it certainly IS possible that a pet adopted from a rescue shelter may have medical problems, however the majority of the animals that are adopted from shelters are perfectly healthy, and just need a good home. If anything, you're more likely to get an honest answer about an animal's medical problems from a shelter volunteer - who is clearly there because they *care* about the animals - as opposed to a pet store owner or breeder that is only it in for the money. Additionally, animals in shelters are typically treated much better than animals in pet stores, which have often spent their short lives in cramped environments with little socializing and often, unsanitary conditions.

To illustrate the point a little more clearly, when you go to a pet store, the animals are kept on display in tiny cages, often with multiple animals in one cage. When you go to a shelter, you will usually find much bigger animal pens, where the animals have some room to move.
And here we go again.....

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#64 Jan 10, 2013
Just for you - put up or shut up

http://aloftyexistence.wordpress.com/2011/04/...

The Manipulative Personality

Posted on April 11, 2011

Manipulators attempt to indirectly control or influence the actions and behavior of others. Instead of being direct with their methods, the manipulator uses underhanded tactics to force their will. Because they are subtle, the manipulative personality easily goes undetected and overlooked, and the person or people being manipulated don’t realize what’s going on until it’s too late. Or not at all. They may believe that they are obligated to do what the manipulator wishes, and feel guilty if they don’t. The manipulative personality may be a family member, friend, or colleague.

With experience or learning, the manipulative personality is much easier to recognize. But many people learn through hard experience what manipulative behavior looks like, and it doesn’t have to be that way. The safest way to learn about the manipulative personality is from a distance, from those who have studied these personalities.

Experts agree that there are three main types of manipulative personality:
&#9632;The Narcissist – The Narcissist is the ultimate manipulator. They are egotistic, self-absorbed and feel entitled to nearly everything they desire. They lack empathy and consideration for others, so they will easily manipulate to their own gain. They think it is their right to have others do what they say.
&#9632;The Needy — The Needy person is the most difficult type of manipulator to let go of. They are experts at making you feel sorry for them, and making you feel like you are the only person that can help them. Some Needy personalities don’t realize that they are manipulative. They have learned to depend on others for their needs, and simply don’t know how to get along without help. They may cry or become offended when accused of manipulation. Those that realize they are manipulative may become passive-aggressive in their attempts to regain control.
&#9632;The Martyr — This type of personality will give you everything — but at a price. They will do you favors, give you special attention, and be overly considerate, but they expect much in return. Their giving is tied to their desire to be considered a “good person” or be considered important to another person. They “cash in” on the favors they’ve done for you to get you to comply with their wishes. Common phrases heard from the Martyr include,“After all I’ve done for you” and “I would do it for you.”

The most common methods of manipulation are flattery, guilt-tripping, repetition, assumption, confrontation, and gaslighting: a way of twisting information in such a way that the person being manipulated begins to doubt their own perceptions and memory.

The best way to deal with a manipulative personality is to acknowledge their ways outright and respond calmly, and even turn their own tactics against them. The manipulator is counting on you to be surprised, confused, and overreact to them, so don’t be. If they say “After all that I’ve done for you!” reply “I’m very grateful for all that you’ve done. Why do you think I’m not? That’s not very nice of you.”

Once the manipulator realizes that they can’t affect you in the way that they want, and can’t influence your thoughts or actions, they will move on. And even if they don’t — you’re safe. Manipulation is all about control, and once you figure out the manipulative personality, they are no longer in control.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#65 Jan 10, 2013
The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted.~Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#66 Jan 10, 2013
When you stretch the truth, watch out for the snapback.~Bill Copeland
Bored

Lake Jackson, TX

#67 Jan 10, 2013
This takes the cake on Waco Weatherfordite! This guy was bad as Obaman2012, but he's over the top with this crap.

Since: Sep 12

Weatherford, TX

#68 Jan 11, 2013
Bored wrote:
This takes the cake on Waco Weatherfordite! This guy was bad as Obaman2012, but he's over the top with this crap.
Your are an uneducated bore.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weatherford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
what kinda town is granbury really? (Sep '08) Feb 14 Anonymous 42
Chance Whitehead Feb 10 Wondering 1
arrested Feb 10 Sad 1
Hi (Jun '16) Feb 9 Cuffinhoods 2
Burglar in ots Feb 7 Melody walker 1
Quick Trip Weatherford Jan 29 Wayne 3
Interstate 20 raDar by WP (Aug '11) Jan 25 Chuckfw 2

Weatherford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Weatherford Mortgages