Jump to content

79-year-old man loses arm after being attacked by a neighbor’s dog in Chonburi


Recommended Posts

Posted

778304_0-696x391.jpg

 

An elderly local resident has lost his arm after he was attacked by his neighbor’s dogs in the Panat Nikhom district earlier this week.

 

Rescue workers were notified of the accident on Wednesday (August 18th) at a house in Thung Kwang.

 

They and The Pattaya News arrived at the house to find the injured man, Mr Juea ‘Keang’ Kitijutirakun, 79. He had sustained serious injuries on his arms from dog bites. He was taken to a local hospital for urgent medical assistance.

 

Full Story: https://thepattayanews.com/2021/08/20/79-year-old-man-loses-arm-after-being-attacked-by-a-neighbors-dog-in-chonburi/

 

 

PattayaNews.jpg

  • Sad 9
Posted
9 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

The two lady dog's owners say they will put a sign on their gate saying do not feed the dogs.

No they did not. Read the story.

Quote

We will put a sign on the fence to warn about the fierce dogs.”

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

Very dangerous to stick ones arm through the gate.

Which really goes to say the old guy got all that was coming to him. Having been to the house before he'd have known the dogs were there. Plain crazy when he could have left the lemons hanging on the outside of the gate. That's what happens at my house when someone drops something off.

  • Confused 4
  • Sad 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, hanuman2543 said:

And than the police will come arrest you and throw you in jail or the neighbors will dish out some Thai justice.

Ah, the insanity that is  Thailand

  • Thanks 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, steven100 said:

why do people have savage dogs in a suburban house yard is beyond me

In Thailand they are mostly burglar alarms

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, richard_smith237 said:

 

I disagree Rob....  A sign doesn’t absolve the owners of any responsibility or fault for being extremely poor owners. 

 

Strawman argument warning: If I had bear traps in my front yard and put a sign up, that wouldn’t absolve me of responsibility should someone get hurt.  I know, a silly and extreme example, but dangerous dogs that will attack people ‘should’ not be there, their owners failed to train them. 

 

Any warning sign of dangerous dogs is just owners admitting they have failed to train their dog properly, those owners should never have had dogs in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

I disagree if its a fenced off area and you climb to get in with signs showing dangerous dogs then your at fault. I am talking about a fenced of area with signs saying beware dangerous dogs. Then for sure the person climbing over and getting attacked is at fault.

 

Is a zoo liable if you climb into the polar bear pen ?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

What a shame not one mention of it being a Pit Bull for the Pit Bull haters. 

Yes, they will be disappointed.

Posted

@richard_smith237

 

Just looked it up if you have a good fence and you have a sign no trespassing and beware of dog then the chances that someone trespassing can sue you and get compensation is quite limited. But laws vary per place. 

 

It really depends on how much trouble the owner has gone through to fence of an area ( if they can still stick arms in and such then its not fenced of good). IF the person really had to take effort to get in and is not supposed to be there (trespassing) then dog owners have a really good case. But again the law can vary per area.

Posted
7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A sign doesn’t absolve the owners of any responsibility

Of course it does. Same as a disclaimer on a document.

  • Confused 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, fredscats said:

The dogs will not be put down,just continue normally (with arm missing)

are they harmless dogs .... or now armless dogs

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

In this case id say the area is not fenced off properly someone can easily stick his arm through the gate. But if proper care was taken to fence the area off, signs were placed and the person was NOT allowed to be there legally it would be a hard case to be found guilty.

 

Of course because of the gaps in the fence like that and no sign that is not the case here.

Posted
1 hour ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

What a shame not one mention of it being a Pit Bull for the Pit Bull haters. 

There is a reason that many who read such a story often assume a pit bull was involved.  Maybe that is because they very often are involved in savage attacks.

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...