Austin Woman Seriously Injured By Dog Named "Sky/Skyler" at Red Bud; Your Help Appreciated

Sad to hear that this happened. But, there are risks associated anytime animals are involved. The dog did not attack her or maim her in anyway. It is a DOG PARK. You know, people take their dogs there to RUN AND PLAY. Usually, when dogs are doing so they can get carried away and accidentally run into someone or something. It's just a fact. Do dog parks have to start posting warning signs and having a liability release before you can enter now? Ridiculous.

It makes NO difference whatsoever who the dog belonged to. You were at your own risk. But, since you're at it, go ahead and sue the city, too. Isn't that what people do when they're injured on city/state property?

Of all dog parks for someone to want to move forward legally and get money for medical bills--Red Bud. Oh, its just surrounded by $$$$$ homes. It was an accident! There are risks associated with everything in life. Sadly, all of us get hurt at one point or another. Sometimes worse than others.

Best wishes to the family. Hopefully, she has a speedy recovery. But, I honestly do NOT feel like they have any ground to sue or receive any form of monetary compensation.

the comment feature altered the link in my last comment. so here is it again.

http://www.kvue.com/news/Woman-injured-at-Austin-dog-park-69798912.html

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, dcm. I'm glad that KVUE picked up the story. The dog's owner may nor may not be liable for Peppler's injuries but that's for a judge and jury to decide. Someone out there knows the person who owns this dog. Do the right thing and turn them in.

About random's comment, he's probably right. Unless negligence can be proven or a history exists with the dog, the dog owner would probably NOT be found negligent. People take a certain amount a risk when going to off-leash dog parks, and the law is setup with the belief that reasonable people understand this. Also, the couple is seeking monetary compensation now, http://www.kvue.com/news/Woman-injured-at-Austin-dog-park-69798912.html...back to the potentially disingenuous motive.

If you read the latest article, note that the dog owner stayed with her till she was in the ambulance and didn't simply take off. Granted, he should come forward just out of principle, but she also should have gotten his information. Just like if you are in a car accident, you exchange information before parting ways.

AustinKaren please move back to NY or California

Thanks!

The injured person should have, by now, contacted the administrative department of the park and discussed the rules and policies in the event of an injury. You know, with a broken spine and all that would be the best bet.

Anyway, if you're going to easily point a finger at an individual for having a dog in one of these places, why not point the finger as the establishment as well for allowing dogs to be there in the first place to potentially injure someone?

Of course there is probably a set of disclaimers set up by the park to protect their liability in these situations, no? Didn't think they might have considered this situation before opening the gates beforehand?

"Adults and mature children who voluntarily encounter a known risk are usually deemed to have consented to the injuries they receive as a result of that particular risk.

If you go to a no-leash dog park and you are injured by a dog, under circumstances other than a bite where the dog would not have injured you if it was leashed, then there is a very good argument that you assumed the risk. After all, you knew that leashes were optional at the park, but you went there anyway to take advantage of the same leash-optional law that resulted in your own injuries."

Oh, right.

Wow, Random, you are so right. In fact, instead of suing drivers, victims of car-crashes should sue the government for building the road in the first place! After all, just like a dog park the government should be held responsible for the users of their facilities. The users themselves on the other hand should never be held responsible.

Hey you guys that take your dogs there and expect to get run into a few times here and there. I am wondering if you minded if I brought down 14 of the clumsiest Great Danes to the park?

I have no control over them since they are from a breeder, but hey it seems like if they plow you down it is really not my problem right? I mean like if the medics come to pick you up and you die from the injuries or like if you have to sleep in a brace or cant pick up your child to simply hug him or her. It is really not my problem and I should not feel bad about it cause it is what it is.

This seems like the strangest form of inteligence and the lowest form of moral responsibility. but hey now I know!

I am pretty certain that Brian just wants to get in touch with Aaron. he can then explain to Aaron what has happend to his wife and let Aaron decide on the direction he wants to take it.

So really to you folks that know Aaron and sky and are trying to advise them what to do about this based on your fear it is time for you to extract your head from your hinnie. Aaron has no need to claim resonsibility for this but it would south his soul to step up. oh and the strange things is now we have about 20 people that will be keeping an ear and an eye out for these people at all the dog parks.

In closing Sky I am sure you are innocent of any true intentional harm. I do hope that you can ask your human mom and dad to stop thinking they can hide from this it is just a conversation. and it would be a shame if you did not get to go play anymore cause your mommy and daddy listend to their friends fears to much.

So since someone's dog charges her causing injury she should have to pay for all her medical expenses? Just because it's an accident doesn't absolve the owner of responsibility. And if the wife's dog was running around like a madman and ran into someone, the wife would be responsible for that, too. Look, there are legal abuses for us to look down on, but holding a pet owner responsible for their pet is not one of them. Dog parks are there for dogs that can behave properly around other dogs and people.

Jesus, good to see this inane babble is still going.

Dogs run at dog parks. That's what dog parks are for. I'm sure this woman's dog was running around like a madman as well. It's not a training issue, this woman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If the dog had attacked or bit her, this would make total sense. But it didn't. You people who are saying that the owner is financially responsible don't have a fucking leg to stand on.

Kristina is the reason why I want to become a falconer; I dream of the day when my huge pet falcon swoops out of the air, grabs your unleashed dog, carries it away, and then rips it to shreds.

I have to agree with the folks here who say there is no reason to find the owner. This is a TERRIBLE situation, and if my dog had caused such injuries, I would be extremely upset. I may even offer money to the injured party, but that's because I have a bleeding heart, not because I would be obligated in that situation to do so by law or even by any ethical standard I can think of.

The language in the letter above says that the dog "charged" her. I don't know what that means, exactly. At Red Bud, I have been knocked in the knees a million times by dogs running at full-tilt. I've also had dogs come running up to me and jump up. If I'd lost my balance, I could have sustained injuries. If I broke my back, or even died as a result, it would not change the nature of the situation and it would not mean to me that any dog owner should be held financially responsible for my injuries. Off-leash dog parks are risky places by nature.

Sometimes terrible things happen, and there is no one to blame.

Gee Kristina, if someone runs their car into you are you going to hold them responsible if they were in the wrong? You should have known streets are dangerous places and it is just the nature of the situation! Come on, off-leash does not mean owners are suddenly not responsible for their dogs. Any dog that jumps on people is obviously aggressive or poorly trained. If one's dog is either, one should not bring it to the off-leash park. After going to an off-leash park once with our dog, I have not returned. The reason is that our dog was harassed by another dog (it was clearly not just playing) and the owner refused to control her dog. If our dog had been injured in any way, I would definitely expect that dog's owner to foot the bill.

I'm just wondering...

If the injury had lead to death after the owner of the dog had left, maybe because of internal bleeding, would people think it was ok for this woman's husband to want to find the owner of the dog?

I'm sorry, but I too fail to see the point of finding the owner. I've spent a good deal of time at Red Bud and it is an off-leash dog park. The object is to let your dog run and play and burn off a lot of energy. Sometimes they run around and have almost knocked me over on occasion but there is no mal intent on anyone's part. This situation is extremely unfortunate but such is life. It is what it is.

So i did a little digging and could not find the non-vehicular equivalent of failure to stop and render aid in Texas law.. (pardon if my earlier comment seemed flippant, i know quite well failure to stop and render aid is a vehicular law, but I thought for sure there had to be a pedestrian or non-vehicular equivalent.)

What was apparent from a 5 second google search was that the under Good Samaritan law,

"In general, Texas law does not impose any duty on anyone to take any affirmative action to prevent harm to another, absent certain special relationships or circumstances. Being helpful to someone in distress may be laudable, noble, or even morally required, but it is usually not legally required. In fact, according to some political theories, this is one of the hallmarks of a free society.

But the owner of the errant dog in this case was not a mere bystander. If a charge of evading the scene of a crime were to hold up, as AustinKaren points out, an actual crime had to have been committed. As far as I know an accident is not a crime, but just seems wrong to be able to just hightail it out of there without exchanging information.

In case you didn't notice, I am not a lawyer- anyone out there more qualified care to enlighten us on this?

Precious. The lot of you. The name was changed in error, neither myself nor my dog harmed anyone and you all need to take your advice to me, get a grip...the witch hunt mentality is PRECISELY why information may not be forthcoming from people, as illustrated here...If someone was left, visibly injured, that's appaling. I NEVER said it wasn't. We don't know that, however and she may have been ambulatory...It was neither stated nor implied above...You do manage to assume a great deal, however...Don't fear, I'll check with the Austinist as to how I can suspend the account and won't be back...I've accused no one and love that a disagreement led to very direct accusations of me...That's fine. I'll await the authorities...Or whatever...

Unfortunately, suspending your own account won't remove your comments. Kinda like how changing your user name didn't fool anybody. Nice try though.

I still can't believe you actually posted this:

"...as an owner of a dog named Sky who fits the description and a husband who fits the description, who was at RedBud this Saturday"

Priceless.

Once again:

"this wasn't a dog that attacked someone or an owner who was willingly negligent. There's no need to find the owner of the dog."

Which is now juxtaposed with:

"You do manage to assume a great deal, however"

Somehow you know a great deal... or you're just assuming a great deal.

Which is it?

You're on your heels and backpedaling a lot from your earlier statements, which is exactly why people are questioning your motives and sincerity.

Just give it up. She's got a picture with a baby, you aren't winning this one.

It's time to step up, Karen. Your dog harmed someone severely and you should at least try to help out with their expenses as much as you can.

I totally agree. The dog was under your control, you have the responsibility.

Anyone else notice that Karen's posts changed to Katie? I think her comments are extremely suspect and it certainly seems like her husband and dog match the description and location. Karma is not a kind thing. Coming forward is the honest and right thing to do here.

As an owner of a pit bull mix, I am always incredibly careful about when my dog is off leash, which is almost never. It would be one thing if the dogs were playing and it was a complete accident, but it sounds like this dog charged her aggressively enough to knock her on her back. I doubt they care much about putting the dog down, they probably want some help with the expenses that will reach into the 10's of thousands of dollars.

Before making any judgments, I'd like to know why the owner needs to contact the dog owner after letting them go away when it happened.

I think the safe assumption is that they'd like help with the medical costs. If not voluntarily, then in court.

From the "very interesting" commentary on this article, I'd bet the former is unlikely, and the latter will be the course of action.

Last time I broke my spine, I had trouble making someone stick around the scene of the accident.. since, you know.. my spine was broken and I was probably writhing in agony. :)

"this wasn't a dog that attacked someone or an owner who was willingly negligent. There's no need to find the owner of the dog."

Plenty of people know their dogs aren't well behaved, well trained, well mannered and/or well adjusted and still let their dogs off the leash. That would be willingly negligent.

How would you know that the owner wasn't willingly negligent unless your husband, relative, or friend is the owner?

There's an absolute need to find the owner of the dog, if only to let the owner know that someone's back was broken.

Well, I don't know the details, but if the dude just apologized and left the scene while the woman was on the ground injured or whatever, that's really shitty. A decent person would have stayed with her until the paramedics arrived and offered something to help her. I understand your point, Karen, but if my dog was responsible for a serious injury, I sure as hell would want to know...and I would help in whatever way I could.

Fair enough, Brain B. Perhaps something good can come of this in the way of ordinances or more defined/refined rules at the dog parks.

KAREN you have the last word much? I am pretty sure it is only about you, as much as you wish to focus it.

If this is your dog and it seems you just made your acct today posbily for the purpose to comment on this feed which seems odd at best and suspicious at worse. Then do your spirit a big KARMA favor and get in touch with them. if it is you and you decide to do nothing but er on the side of anger which you have represented then maybe those of us that do have sympathy for this can set up a trust for this your family to help them out with the aid they may need over the next few years. What i dont understand is why KAREN your so upset about Brians intentions if this has nothing to do with you. Unless you really have nothing else to do. As for me I work at home now due to a major Spinal injury.

Just agreeing with him, dingy...I hope some changes are made so that everyone feels safer at the dog park...Rest your head...

Photo ID, finger printing, live security cams, an entrance fee with a sign in sheet, implanting micro chips from the sarcos company that can render dogs immobile until the owners have exchanged information? what kind of changes would you like to have made Karen?

Christ on a crutch, you narcissist. Step away from the damn keyboard.

Damn right they probably have litigious motives, and that's exactly what they SHOULD have. If your dog is not well trained enough to behave at an off-leash dog park, and you let him off-leash anyways? That's called negligence and it means you pay their medical bills and other resulting expenses.

Was a crime committed here? No. Not even close. But there was a private, civil injury, and the damages party should be restored to whole.

This is as it should be. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded about our legal system and how it works.

Whitney84 with the slam dunk.

AustinKaren: You're an unethical bitch.

DAMN IT!!!!

I was going to post a comment about how you made an incredibly valid point(Whitney84) but that I was really curious about what AustinKaren had to say about it. By the time I finished reading the comments she had already made another comment. Classic!!

What do you do for a living, AustinKaren, that affords you the free time in the middle of the day to post endless arguing comments with other Austinist readers. Whatever that is, I want in!!

Thanks, and get well soon Jessica!

Johnny

E-Rock -- My injury was not minor and took weeks to heal. No, it was not an injury to my back and that is especially unfortunate. BUT, I did have considerable out-of-pocket expenses, healing time and missed work. Because the Akita was chasing another dog in play, I wasn't able to react quickly enough. There was no negligence on the part of the owners. They were very sympathetic but I'm just not sure what notifying them of my injury would have accomplished. Perhaps there was negligence but every time I'm at RedBud, there are a million near misses between dogs and people.

near miss = hit, no?

Can we please skip the knee-jerk internet cynicism? If you know something that can help this poor mother, please do so. If not, just move on to your next snarky blog post.

Think about if it was you or someone in your family with a broken back and a newborn baby.

Karen i only made this account to comment on your stupid ass rants you have no fucking clue about the real world or real community. If you know the people then help Brian and Jessica get in touch with them. if you dont then shut the fuck up

HEY every body it is MAKE the whole thing about KAREN day today she really needs you to pay attention to HOW educated she is. KEEP your EYE on THE ball.

Your handle is apt...And still, no anger from me...Just you...I don't understand the rest of your ramblings...They're not terribly intelligible.

So, if this happened to you, you wouldn't want to notify the owner of the dog and tell them that your spine was broken? Seems pretty serious to me.

WOW im glad your so adult and mature that you cannot see the humor of your anger It must really feel wonderful to rip apart any random person you find on the web. Your acusations of their intentions of wrong doing kida show a level of paranoia that should really be left in the atourneys office. and if my grammer is bad then maybe you want to school me on that also since you seem to want to school anyone that posts on here. Why dont you just come clean or dont come back here and post anything else your not productive.

And I've expressed not one iota of anger or hostility. Just concern for the motive.

Comparing children to dogs is always odd. Children aren't in "on-leash" and "off-leash" settings. Not really a valid comparison.

Poor form is generally indicated by those making light of an unfortunate situation. Also indicated by dreadfully poor grammar in snarks...I've done neither. And, you're all just really illustrating my point about concerns for a witchhunt. My dog's not to blame...And you're ill-timed jocularity is tacky...

Hey there Sorry about the dilema there this is truly sad to see. I have not been back to redbud since this old man let his dogs run back and forth across the road while he sat under the bridge. It was kinda strange cause the rest of us down there kept trying to get the dogs out of the road and a few people almost got hit.

Also it is sad that Karens husband was flirting with another lady and not paying attention to their dog when it ran down Jessica. I know how bad and expensive back injury's can be and with a new kid it would be horible to not be able to pick the child up for many years because of this. And Karen if your child had ran down Jessica in a park with a tricycle would you still be angry with jessica for getting in the way or would you take responsiblity call the madical team and give your insurance info? Oh Karen to share so much bad form sister. LOL . Jessica i do hope you get well soon.

Please...Give me a break...But Nick illustrated what several have stated as a concern...The idea that perhaps the folks just wanting to "notify" the dog's owner of the incident have another (possibly litigious) agenda...

And no, not too much. Nick was referring to laws designed to protect folks in instances of vehicular accidents (hit and run). The article noted the dog's owners apologized for what happened and I didn't read that vehicles were involved...

Wow AustinKaren! You've really said a lot...too much in fact. Are you not telling us something?

I'm terribly sorry if I missed something, but I didn't read that the dog was in a vehicle...Failure to render aid is not a crime...and it is not criminal negligence. Let's at least not be silly here.

Failure to stop and render aid. Criminal negligence.

Barney -- I don't doubt the trauma and I do sympathize (as stated), but I stand by what I said. I meant no offense and said nothing even remotely hostile, if you were referring to me...If not, well, I think everyone is showing discretion while voicing opinions...And, this post does allow comments...So, well, there's that.

And, as an owner of a dog named Sky who fits the description and a husband who fits the description, who was at RedBud this Saturday (but whose dog never leaves our side) I'd exercise caution posting things like this to ensure there aren't repercussions for innocent parties in the future...

And again, I'd like to know WHY the owners of the dog are being sought...

A woman had her spine broken. If you know the guy or the dog or can help, contact this Brian person. If not, show a little restraint and keep your opinions to yourself. I am sure this event traumatized the whole family. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, Internet commenters.

Several years ago, I had my knee blown out by an errant Akita at RedBud. The dog's owners were very apologetic and I thought that sufficed. I didn't know then that the knee required medical attention and would take weeks to heal. It's a leash-free park and that makes it inherently unsafe...A running dog can take out a full-grown man. One can do his/her best to keep a dog in line when at an off-leash park but the idea that an unleashed dog is fully under your control is simply naive. It's not as though the dog was in a residential area or in a park where leashes are required and the owner was violating any ordinance.

I feel for the injured parties and know it's frustrating but this wasn't a dog that attacked someone or an owner who was willingly negligent. There's no need to find the owner of the dog.

Sad to hear that. I hope you are ok though. When did this happen? And Where?

these are both strong points. this situation really reminds me to be vigilant when I'm at the dog park.

While the accident is terribly unfortunate I can't understand why you are looking for the dog or owner of it if "you don't want anything bad to happen" to them.

Your story and motives sound slightly disingenuous to me. I don't know the details of the situation but I expect a certain level of rambunctiousness at a dog park. If this incident was more than that you should come out and say it.

Funny how we go to the park and know the dogs name and not the owners name! The owner of the dog was apologetic? so someone talked to him? Should have got his name when he said I'm sorry my dog broke your wife's spine! hmmm

Not knowing what they have in mind, I personally would at the very least ask (if not demand) that the dog owner help with medical expenses. In my opinion, that wouldn't be wishing anything "bad" on him/them, just expecting them to take responsibility for an out-of-control pet. Seems fair, at the very least.

There's also a certain level of pet control expected at the dog park. I could see where they would want to communicate to the owner the damage that an untrained dog or inattentive owner can cause to avoid future mishaps.