Ving Rhames is not Michael Vick. Both are famous, outstanding in their fields, and owners of dogs. In the recent past, both have been in the news because of their dogs. But that is where the similarity ends.

Ving Rhames' dogs had some involvement in the death of Jacob Adams this month. However, it appears clear that the dogs did not kill Adams at all, or that the death of the caretaker of the dogs could have been foreseen. (See my earlier post, however, about the danger presented by dogs of this size, number and placement in a residential area.)

In my field of dog bite law, there is a type of accident referred to as "dog fright" -- a person is injured not because of getting bitten, but by reacting to a charging or threatening dog, and getting hurt in the process of reacting. The best example is Hubble v. Iseke, in which pedestrians fell off a short cliff while being chased by a vicious dog. (To download and read Hubble, click here.) Adams had some superficial bite wounds but died on the other side of the fence from where the dogs were. He might have fought off the dogs, run from them, and died from the effort or literally the fright.

Rhames now says that he is going to get rid of some of these same dogs. I suggested this in a prior post. He also has expressed remorse for the death of Adams. If we, the public, are getting the true facts from him and Los Angeles authorities, then Rhames' words and actions are appropriate.

Not like Michael Vick. While Rhames gave or will give his dogs away, Vick and his buddies brutally killed 8 of his own. While Rhames expressed his affection for Adams and remorse at his death, Vick has said "my fans love me and will love me anyway." While Rhames has been forthcoming and apparently sincere about the death of Adams, Vick has been angling to get a sweet deal from prosecutors even though his co-conspirators have confessed and pleaded guilty. (To read a Vick conspirator's confession, click here.)

And don't forget the most important part: Rhames was not present when Adams died, could hardly have foreseen that death would result from owning so many large dogs, and apparently has no civil or criminal liability for the accident on his property, while on the other hand, Vick was the ringleader and money-man behind a series of state and federal crimes that pertain to the depraved killing of animals for the purpose of entertainment.

So memorize this: Ving is not Vick. Ving is the one you will see on DVD, Vick is the one that you will see during visiting hours in a federal penitentiary.

A male pit bull, kept on a chain in the basement, killed 7-year-old Zachary King Jr. in Minneapolis on Thursday afternoon. The dog belonged to his parents. (To read the full story, click here.)

This attack was foreseeable if the parents knew the warning signs. First, this was a male dog. Male dogs account for 75% of dog attacks. (See Why Dogs Bite.)

Second, it was a pit bull. According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006;
click here to read it.)

Third, the dog was kept chained. Chaining results in aggression (26-28% of dogs involved in fatal attacks were chained at the time). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: Dog Bite Related Fatalities from 1979 through 1988 by J. Sacks. R. W. Sattin, & S. E. Bonzo. Volume 262, pages 1489-1492.

Michael Vick's co-conspirators have confessed to hanging and drowning pit bulls that were not able or willing to kill each other. (Read more from the CNN article.)

They have filed papers in court that confirm what we did not want to be true: Vick himself executed approximately 8 dogs by drowning them and hanging them.

A quick, painless death was not in the cards for Michael Vick's dogs. He was compelled to kill them himself, and make their deaths violent, brutal and horrific.

While his co-conspirators show a glimmer of honor by entering guilty pleas and admitting their wrongs, Michael Vick remains a holdout as of today. He will not consent to pleading guilty unless he receives a better deal than prosecutors are willing to offer.

In other words, he wants his punishment to be quick and painless -- the opposite of what he did to his dogs. Well, let's see what happens on Monday. There is a sporting chance that the Grand Jury will add a RICO charge to the indictment. A RICO conviction brings 20 years in jail.

Inside Edition videoed an interview of me today, focusing on Ving Rhames' dogs. The actor owns at least 4 dogs. One or more played a role in the death of Jacob Adams, 40 (see post, below). Whether Adams died of a mauling or a heart attack is still under investigation.

Regardless of the cause of Adams' death, I feel that Rhames is not a responsible dog owner -- not necessarily a law violator, and probably not even a tortfeasor, but irresponsible nevertheless. My opinion is based upon what we already know about the dogs at Rhames' house. He acquired 4 or more large, powerful dogs. These were kept at his residence, in a residential section of a crowded city. Rhames himself is required to travel as part of his occupation, so he is not always there to control his dogs.

He unwittingly created an accident waiting to happen. Four or more dogs (even small, docile dogs) present increased risk of violence when kept together, because of the pack mentality. Rhames' dogs were large and powerful, making the potential for trouble worse. This being a residential area, there is a possibility that the dogs will encounter a child retrieving a ball or a senior citizen taking a walk -- kids and the elderly are the ones who get hurt the most by dogs. Finally, these large, powerful dogs might be wonderful toward Rhames but he is engaged in work that takes him away for stretches of time, leaving the dogs without their master.

I am disturbed by the report in People Magazine that Rhames believes that the Los Angeles City Coroner told him that his dogs did not contribute to Adams' death. (Click here to read the article in People.) In fact, the coroner is still investigating and has not prepared a final report -- so it is unlikely that Rhames, the person under investigation, would be told anything at all. I would counsel Rhames to make no further public statements about the death, confine his dogs more securely, and get rid of a few of them. After all, he gave away his Golden Globe award, and little statuettes never hurt anybody.

Watch Inside Edition to see the interview, sometime during the next few days.

Dogs belonging to respected, award-winning actor Ving Rhames' mauled their caretaker, Jacob Adams, 40, at the actor's Los Angeles home today. Because authorities are saying that Adams may have died of a heart attack, however, it cannot be said at the present time that the dogs caused his death. He had worked with the dogs for two years, according to authorities.

Three of the dogs are mastiffs and one a bulldog. Mastiffs were bred as very large guard dogs. "What the Lion is to the Cat, the Mastiff is to the Dog." (Cynographia Britannica, 1800.) Recall that Diane Whipple was killed by a Presa Canario, a type of mastiff. Other varieties include the Tibetan mastiff, which weighs up to 250 pounds (and commanded a price tag of over $500,000 within the past year).

While the family of the deceased might have a workers' compensation claim against Rhames, they probably cannot sue him for wrongful death. This is because canine professionals of all sorts are presumed to have assumed the risk of injury by dogs in their care -- at least where the dogs are of normal temperament. Only one year ago, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed this rule, which protects dog owners at the expense of groomers, walkers, petsitters, and others who are similarly engaged.

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on Wednesday that a Toledo city ordinance that restricts and regulates the ownership of pit bull dogs does not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners.

The majority of the court relied heavily upon a number of verified, negative facts about pit bulls that were proved in the trial court. The dissenting judge gave her approval to the ordinance but said that the overwhelming evidence should lead to law enforcement activity against dog owners who make their dogs more violent.

If you are interested in this issue, you should read the excerpts from the court's majority and dissenting opinions. Click on the "Read More" link below to see them. To read the court's comprehensive press release, click here. To download the entire opinion by the court, click here.