"dangerous dogs" vrs restricted breeds

Am I right in saying we don't have a list of dangerous dogs (as in other countries), but a list of ten to whom extra restrictions apply (muzzling etc)? But outside of having extra control measures, this dogs are not set apart in law from all other dogs?

The legal wording is important. In a situation where a company's insurance covers all accidents involving dogs except those defined as dangerous dogs by regional law.

muddypaws

No, we don't have a list of dangerous dog, we have a restricted breed list, as you say, with extra control measures.

However, a dog can be classed as being dangerous if a Judge deems it so, and can have extra measures imposed, so for example, if a labrador was involved in an incident and the owner was taken to court, a judge could impose the same restrictions as those imposed on the breeds on the restricted list - as well as other restrictions, if that makes sense. And then in law, that dog would be known as a Dangerous Dog.

muddypaws

muddypaws wrote: »

No, we don't have a list of dangerous dog, we have a restricted breed list, as you say, with extra control measures.

However, a dog can be classed as being dangerous if a Judge deems it so, and can have extra measures imposed, so for example, if a labrador was involved in an incident and the owner was taken to court, a judge could impose the same restrictions as those imposed on the breeds on the restricted list - as well as other restrictions, if that makes sense. And then in law, that dog would be known as a Dangerous Dog.

That's much clearer. Thanks. The dog in question is one of the ten restricted breeds, trying to get the company to clarify whether she falls outside of their insurance by being a restricted breed, or in the absence of an actual Dangerous Dogs list, she is covered.