I don't quite follow the reasoning presented in this post. Cats are too small (or quick) to be tripped over, nobody "walks" a cat, cats aren't up and about that much in the house (i.e., they don't do s--t)...so of course dogs would be more likely to cause a fall, in an incidence comparison between the 2 species. And the fact that dogs cause more falls...as a data point...has no direct relevance on an owner's liability for another's fall...it's simply that a dog caused someone's fall.greenbee1978 wrote:I wonder if those who find this amusing would laugh if they knew a study by the CDC shows dogs are 85% more likely than cats to cause serious falls? In addition, this means the dog owner is liable for any person's fall, especially if the dog is off-leash (i.e. negligence) at the time of the incident. Still funny?
From the CDC: "Among falls involving dogs, 61.6% occurred in or around the home, and 16.4% in the street or other public place. A location was not specified for 20.3% of cases. Twenty-six percent of falls involving dogs occurred while persons were walking them, and the most frequent circumstances were falling or tripping over a dog (31.3%) and being pushed or pulled by a dog (21.2%). Falling over a pet item (e.g., a toy or food bowl) accounted for 8.8% of fall injuries. Approximately 38.7% involved other or unknown circumstances."
So for the data for which a location is specified and for which the circumstances are known, it appears that the dogs' owners are the ones who fell. greenbee1978's citation of these data in a discussion of off-leash dogs in the wilderness is a stretch.