On June 16, 2008, trial will begin for Bentley Collins, 53, of Dillon County, South Carolina. He is accused of involuntary manslaughter because his six dogs killed 10-year-old Matthew Davis on Nov. 3, 2006. The mauling took place at Collins' residence. (Click here to read the article.)

Adam Tinsley, 11, of Waynesboro, Virginia, was seriously injured by a pit bull last week. He has a laceration on his face that certainly will end up being an obvious scar. (See photo, to the right.)

But he will never collect compensation, even for a little bit of scar reduction treatment. That is because this accident happened in Virginia, where the pertinent laws are exactly the same as they were when Virginia was just a colony of England. I am referring to the contributory negligence rule and the one-bite rule.

I have written a great deal about the one-bite rule. The article about Adam's accident features a lot of quotes from me about it. (Click here to read it.) But there is an even greater villain at large in Virginia, and it is the contributory negligence rule. This ancient English law says that even if a victim is only one percent responsible for an accident, he can recover nothing. Only 4 American states follow this rule, and Virginia is one of them. (Click here to read about the dog bite laws of Virginia.)

Like the one-bite rule, the contributory negligence rule is completely out of place in modern America. We believe that every person is required to take responsibility for his actions. If a dog owner is 99% at fault and the child who was injured is only one percent at fault, why should the dog owner escape any civil liability at all?

A mother encourages her baby to get into the face of a dog that is panting,
its ears laid back, its gaze averted and head turning from side to side. The mom ignores these danger signs, completely absorbed by what she believes is the "cuteness" of the moment.

To a person familiar with dogs, however, this one is cornered, fearful and about to snap at the child's face. Thankfully, the dog controls itself and the video ends without violence.

"Exceptionally nice dog here, utterly stupid mother," writes Alexandra Semyonova, an expert in canine behavior. "The dog exercises huge self control for a full minute and a half, then gets up and walks away in the end. But if it hadn't, if it had lashed out even symbolically, this child could have spent the rest of its life without a face -- and everyone would have blamed the dog."

Click here to watch the video and decide for yourself whether it is the cutest movie you ever saw, or an accident waiting to happen.

Recently an Orange, Florida, school district entered into a settlement which will cost them $1.8 million because a boy was mauled severely on school property. This amount will be in addition to $200,000 that was received from the state.

The district knew that dogs were running into the school yard but little or nothing was done to prevent it. The child's injuries were so extreme that the district feared a much higher jury verdict. Indeed, a jury, in its role as the conscience of the community, could very well return a higher verdict as a result of being outraged at the district's inaction. (Click here to read the article.)

The Florida house of representatives still has to vote to order the district to pay the settlement (the headline is misleading, as you will realize when you read the article). Nevertheless, this settlement should provide a warning to government agencies that they can be held liable for their negligence in protecting at least children from dangerous dogs.

The issue of governmental responsibility for dog attacks boils down to one of sovereign immunity. When our ancestors were ruled by a king, there was a legal principle that "the king can do no wrong." No matter what the king did, he could not be sued. Even though Americans no longer have a king, we still have sovereign immunity.

When it comes to dog attacks, the states, counties and cities generally are immune no matter how awful and negligent they are when it comes to getting rid of dangerous dogs. This is something that needs to be changed.

Zachary King Sr. has been found not guilty of second degree manslaughter charges in the death of his 7-year-old son, Zachary Jr. Despite the fact that the dog previously bit people in seven different incidents, the judge (there was no jury) concluded that there was reasonable doubt that Mr. King knew his dog was capable of inflicting serious injury. In one of those prior incidents, the victim was the boy himself, who survived it only to be killed later. (To read the article about the acquittal, click here.)

While I was not present for the trial, I nevertheless must question the court's verdict. I have made a study of criminal prosecutions of parents for the canine-inflicted deaths of their children, and have seen that it is almost impossible to get a conviction. The court or jury usually thinks about how sorry the defendant is, and then concludes that he could not have anticipated the mauling. This results in a not guilty verdict almost all the time. But it is not fair to the kids who die this way. The fact remains that the parents ignored the clear signs that their dogs could kill. Doing so should result in punishment.

Derick D. Lee, 34, of Kansas City, Kan., was caring for a pit bull when it attacked 71-year-old Jimmie Mae McConnell as she worked in her garden on January 27, 2006. She later died. Pit bulls had been banned by city ordinance.

A jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter this week. Sentencing is set for May 16.