Using Children wrote on Feb 3, 2008 8:47 PM:If this woman was the victim, why does she use her child in the picture,maybe for more sympathy. She is no different than using children in any picket line.
Does this sell more papers.

regardless wrote on Feb 4, 2008 6:44 AM:some folks love big strong dogs and they aren't smart enough to train the dog to be calm non-violent. In fact, many of the people who own boxers and rotties and other big, more aggressive breeds think it is cool to own a "bad ass" junnk yard dog. That is until it hurts some one. Now the dog owner has to pay $150,000 to the victim. Let it be a lesson. If you want a big mean dog, be prepared to pay anyone it hurts and GO TO JAIL.
Control your dogs. I don't blame the dog, I blame the owner.

esteban wrote on Feb 4, 2008 6:45 AM:Who cares about the picture with kid? It’s just a picture.

Just sue the home owner’s insurance company; they'll pay up even if the dog owner wasn't the home owner.

To USING CHILDREN comment wrote on Feb 4, 2008 6:47 AM:HER CHILDREN witnessed the attack. Do you know how traumatizing that is to a child??Maybe that is why a child is in the picture. Get the picture now??

sue wrote on Feb 4, 2008 7:18 AM:to "using children"- I think it's obvious, her son was a witness to the attack! He is a victim as much as his mother. If you could watch your mother mauled and not be affected by it, I'm scared of you.

esteban wrote on Feb 4, 2008 7:50 AM:There goes fake esteban again...posting idiotic comments to try and smear me. ...

Mike wrote on Feb 4, 2008 7:59 AM:This woman has suffered enough without being attacked by "Using Children".

Nutz wrote on Feb 4, 2008 9:15 AM:That will solve the problem - sue a public (i.e. - taxpayer) agency since they will have the deepest pockets. No one should have to suffer what Mattthews has gone through, but where does it say she should blame the County for this rather than the dog owners? Simple answer: the County has a lot more bucks to sue for.

2 esteban wrote on Feb 4, 2008 10:01 AM:No one knows who you are, and no one cares who you are. So how is someone smearing you? You make your self look the fool when you’re constantly crying and threatening to get your lawyers on them.

What is wrong NCT does the truth hurt? wrote on Feb 4, 2008 10:03 AM:
Mathews a veterinarian doesn’t she have health insurance? $150,000 Hum, I am not sure I believe this. NCT why don’t you post the medical bill? A White woman holding her kid can sure sell a lot of papers, she becomes very important. But a Mexican man illegally evicted with 5 children will not be popular. Simple ECONOMICS or is it POLITICS and CONFLICT of INTERESTS?

Reality wrote on Feb 4, 2008 10:04 AM:She is suing us - we live in the County. She is trying to take money to from the citizens. That is correct way to look at this story. Look at her as if she were suing YOU because she is!

Common Sense (cents) wrote on Feb 4, 2008 11:33 AM:I'll try again.

I first read this story last week in the Union Tribune. So what is it that makes it news now. The first lawsuit was filed last year. Be that as it may, the facts, all the facts, deserve to be discussed.

The woman is truly a victim. No doubt. It was tragic and no one should have to suffer like that.

However, no one is responsible for this except the dog owner. The fact he can't pay all of her bills is sad, but that is the way it happens sometimes.
The man is clearly responsible for the acts of his dogs, that's why he [was sentenced to 90 days.]

Lastly, important note. The previous attacks were on his (the owner's) property. Those two victims in two seperate incidents were working on that property and stuck their hands in the pen.

One filed a report and the other fled back to his native country.

Therefore, you and I will likely pay the bill as "the county" because we have deeper pockets than the owner.

The claim by the attorney that the dogs attacked this poor lady because someone who looked like her sprayed them with mace would be funny, if it wasn't so stupid. Does anyone else stop and read these things and just wonder out loud "...are you kidding me?"

Deep Pockets wrote on Feb 4, 2008 11:55 AM:It's pretty clear that the county represents deep pockets to Matthews and her lawyer ... Her experience was truly awful, but why weren't her bills covered by insurance? The lack of medical insurance was a risk that she chose to take. She could have been in a car accident, or injured by one of her equine patients. The dog owner is ultimately responsible for the behavior of his dogs.Once again, ordinary citizens may have to cough up the cash for another citizen's negligence in being responsible for themselves.

Joe wrote on Feb 4, 2008 1:06 PM:The dogs should have been kept locked up or been put down after the first attack.
I do not think she should sue but help pass stricter laws. Even where I live people let their dogs loose and they chase kids on bikes and people on horseback. And would bite if they get a chance.

To Deep Pockets wrote on Feb 4, 2008 2:29 PM:Before you judge, please consider the judgment by the judge, 123000 paid 100 monthly will take 1230 months or 102.5 years to payoff. I do not know about you, this kind of judgment is stupid at best because first, no one rarely live pass 100 yrs and second, insurance should not be even be factor in. Else count illegals who used our emergency rooms as their insurance. So, what's wrong paying to the white woman? you racist againt white. So the county government is ultimately to blame and of course the citizen who elected those government should pay for it. Until the day the citizen stand up to the government and hold them accountable, this is the price we have to pay.

RichardM wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:15 PM:She should sue the federal government. It's George Bush's fault for not sending a surge of animal control officers to quell the vicious dogs soon enough. Impeach Bush now!

Escondido Reader wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:26 PM:Animal control departments exist to make sure the public is not endangered by animals....the dog catcher's job is to catch bad dogs. In this case, that department failed its job. They failed not because of incompetence, I believe, but due to too few animal control officers and too small a budget.
There are not very many ways to force a public office to perform its duties properly. About the only way is to sue it. Suing the animal control department will force county officials, next time they plan the county, to think carefully about providing adequate funding for animal control.

EP wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:27 PM:When this story first came out the article said that the gate to the side yard of the owners house was left open by the owners son. Mathews and her child were walking up the street when the dogs attacked. At first they were going for her son but being a mother she got them away from him and they went after her instead while her son watched. It was a horrible accident all around. The only thing I don't understand is why can't she go back to work? Scared of horse dogs....whatever. Have the horse people keep the dogs in the house while Mathew is there. This new law-suit has gone too far. Get back to work and stop wasting money.

DD Wiz, wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:39 PM:Of course taxpayers should pay $150,000 to this woman for her expenses. She is a horse groomer and as such is interested in reducing our dependence on FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS. As taxpayers we should be willing to pay anything to anyone who will lessen our dependence on FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS.

Re: To Deep Pockets wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:54 PM:How about taking race out of your comments and trying again.

Rosie wrote on Feb 4, 2008 3:59 PM:Walking in your own Escondido neighborhood is dangerous. Less than a block from our house, my husband was attacked by a full-grown boxer. The owner had accidentally left the gate open and the dog got loose. The homeowner didn't have insurance; our health insurance paid most of it, but we had to pay the $1,500 deductible. Nothing to date from the owner, except she doesn't talk to us anymore. The owner decided that she wouldn't put the dog to sleep until it bites a second time. The Humane Society wrote a report and said they couldn't put it to sleep until it bites a second time and it's reported. My husband spent 2 days in the hospital with dog bites and trauma. Our attorney wouldn't pursue it because we "didn't have a case." In other words, there wasn't money to be made.

Freud wrote on Feb 4, 2008 4:41 PM:Perhaps we should not have Animal Control at all. Just let citizens deal with them wholesale. As an aside, if the woman would have been allowed to carry a twenty-two caliber pistol by the State, she could have dealt with the threat in short order. This is not to say she would have been packing heat.

Chris wrote on Feb 4, 2008 5:16 PM:This is yet another indictment of the corrupt US Marine Corps. Of course thier mascot is a dog and they did nothing to prevent tis vicious dog attack. Instead they are in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children. Shame on them.

jers wrote on Feb 4, 2008 8:06 PM:a vet with a paralyzing fear of dogs my... a vet with a wish to live off a settlement is more like it. suck it up and go back to work...

I can't imagine wrote on Feb 4, 2008 8:51 PM:posting my, or most importantly my child's face in the newspaper in this way to publicize a self-serving lawsuit. It looks like a calculated attempt at sympathy to me, and tosses any sincerity to this claim - well - to the dogs. Race is not a factor in this, irresponsibility on behalf of the dog's owner, and an inflated sense of entitlement on behalf of the victim are. Neither one is acceptable. Both should accept responsibility and do the right thing.

susan wrote on Feb 4, 2008 10:12 PM:So you think that equine vets are rich? Think again! There is more to this story than is said here in the paper. If you knew this family you would know them as giving, caring people and not "takers" or "sue happy" people. I remember Nancy Matthews from the 2003 fires in VC helping others and their animals and freely giving her time and expertise where ever she could. It is easy to judge but I wonder what you would do in her shoes? This has changed this woman's life forever as well as her sons.

Josie wrote on Feb 4, 2008 10:26 PM:How come a white woman gets slammed for apparently not having health ins. Maybe she has health insurance and that is her portion of the bill! Six days in the hospital and several major surgeries are not cheap!

Joice wrote on Feb 5, 2008 12:14 AM:Health insurance covers all of the hospital expenses. Except for deductible sometimes it is $ 50- 150.00 dollars. NOT $ 150,000!!!

John wrote on Feb 5, 2008 4:51 PM:There is not way that Matthews is going to prevail in this lawsuit. It will have taken some clever drafting of the amended lawsuit by her attorney to get by Brewster’s next request of the court to dismiss this lawsuit. Even if she does get by the county’s motion to dismiss the complaint, she’ll have tough time proving her case. If she fails, she will be subject to paying the county’s costs of defending itself.
For someone to be liable for this dog attack, they must either be an owner of the dogs (strict liability) or a keeper of the dogs with knowledge of the dogs’ dangerous propensities yet did not do enough to protect Matthews (negligence).
Since the animal control department is not an owner or keeper of the dogs, the only chance of establishing the department's liability is that it had a mandatory duty to impose death or restrictions on the dogs and that their failure to carry out that duty was the legal cause of Matthews injures.
If the judge were to decide that the department had a mandatory duty to conduct a hearing which would have for sure resulted in the imposition of restrictions on the dogs’ owner as a condition of keeping the dogs AND that the dogs’ owner would have complied with those restrictions and that as a result of compliance with those restrictions Matthews would not have been attacked, then Matthews would have stated enough facts for her lawsuit to go forward. She would then have to carry her burden of proof on all of these issues before she would be successful in obtaining a recovery from the department.

For those of us who are constantly representing dog attack victims, this is a very interesting case. We’ll be watching to see how Matthews’ attorney overcomes the significant legal hurtles to holding the county liable for Matthews’ injuries. I do not think she can or should win.

Besides, government employees are immune from claims of liability for the consequences of their discretionary acts, where they are given discretion. Gov Code 820.2. The entity which is responsible for that employee is also immune from such a suit. Gov Code 815.2. This includes the "failure to enforce an enactment". Gov Code 821. The only way out would be if the public entity had a mandatory duty, imposed by the legislation creating the duty, to act in a particular way unless the public entity "exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty". Gov Code 815.6.
A situation similar to this "you should have removed this dangerous dog from the community" argument is the "this bad guy should have been arrested and jailed" argument. Gov Code section 846 says "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody".

Matthews’ has a better chance of the dogs’ owner winning the lottery and then paying her an appropriate sum for her injuries.

So why would Matthews and her attorney file a lawsuit with so little chance of winning? Maybe he and Matthews feel that by bring this lawsuit and all of us reading and writing about it, attention will be drawn to the problem and their will be stricter enforcement by animal control and/or the county will pass stricter laws concern aggressive dogs.

Chanchu wrote on Feb 5, 2008 8:18 PM:Dog owners and dogs are out of countrol in our country, lout dog owners kill scores and put hundreds of thousands of people ( Mostly children) in the hospital every year via savage dog attacks. It is a national disgrace. Dog attacks put more kids in the hospital than weapons accidents and incidents. Toxic levels of dog noise pollution torment hundreds of thousands of people in every state- robbing them of their homes. Doubt it? google "dog attacks". Animal control is worthless- in most cases they are a enabling agency for bad dog ownership. If this legal suit is won by the wronged lady and her family- maybe animal control officials will start doing their jobs and start protecting the people from dangerous noise polluting dog owners

Chanchu wrote on Feb 5, 2008 8:41 PM:
Actually it is political officials who write the budgets and provide the regulations for animal control they are the ones responsible for the dog attack epidemic- to often animal control is worthless becauase of the actions of elected officials who do not hire AC people who want to protect the public from dog attacks and give them the laws and tools to do the job correctly. If this case is won and a award given elected officials may start to do the job they were hired to do enact laws that protect the public and preserve the peace.

John wrote on Feb 6, 2008 10:09 AM:Lawsuits set precedent which define law. Have you ever tried to get the laws or ordinances changed for the better - it's a major struggle, but a court case will expedite the process. Without a court case the victim would battle the narrow minded authorities with all her reasons the law should be changed, they'd feel really sorry for her and do nothing. The animal control did nothing before why would they change without a lawsuit? What is the point in paying for an animal control if they do not uphold the law. They are just as responsible as the dog owner in failing to follow proper protocol to protect citizens. It's ridiculous to assume the victim has an "inflated sense of entitlement". Obviously you've never been attacked and mauled by a dog especially to the point where it changes your whole life and that of your children. It's ridiculous to be so ignorant when it comes to dogs and lack of ownership responsibility. If the legal authorities can't protect the citizens then they get sued. I hope she wins big. If a dog bites, it's not socialized enough to be in society. Kill it.

Dennis wrote on Feb 7, 2008 10:41 PM:To fake "esteban" I can tel its you when you do it. You who to sue line gave you away buddy, bet you wont about this or to esteban. If you got the same name you need to put an initial with it.

jsc wrote on Feb 9, 2008 5:27 PM:The dog's owner and property owner should be responsible to pay this bill, not the County. If neither can pay more than $100/month, the property should be sold to pay this woman's bills. Oh and I think the vet is milking her disability to work for a bigger settlement/pity play. I have been bitten by 12 dogs, mostly nips, but one tried to kill me. I was scared, did have to go to ER (on the job injury-workers comp paid). Vet should also be carrying health insurance on herself and kids--who pays if they're sick or injured in the future? BTW I still love dogs despite 1 serious attack and take my dog almost everywhere with me. But I keep her under control--always.