Pitbulls, rot wiellers, doberman's, these animals can do as much damage as a major car accident. Do you feel every owner should have an insurance policy to cover any damage the animal can or does do?

should parents have insurance on their kids in case they misbehave?

its not the breed that defines the behavior, its the trainer. yes, some dogs are harder to train, but its still the responsibility of the owner to train it. If a dog is normally well behaved and it suddenly acts out, theres probably a reason that has nothing to do with the trainer, and more to do with the person who got hurt.

If a person owns a home then one of the questions asked when getting the policy is if you have dogs and if so, which breeds. I'm not sure if they'll not insure you if you have what's considering a "dangerous" breed. They may still insure but charge more because they feel it's more likely for your dog to injure someone on your premises. I believe this only covers for damages on the property. If they did have an insurance specifically to cover a dog owner of a vicious dog it would probably be very, very expensive and not something any insurance company would want to offer!

No. The last thing we need is more insurance costs.

it shouldn't be breed specific. i think that people who have dogs that have bitten should be forced to have such insurance. remember that there are probably 10 or more million dogs of the breeds you have mentioned. only about 10 or so dogs a year kill people. why would you punish the majority for the sins of a few? is it guilty until proven innocent?

edited to add: small dogs have killed people too, it is not that common but it happens. labs are also big dogs and they do kill people(it just doesn't sound as cool in news reports). i've been attacked by a lab mix. should people who own labs also be forced to buy such insurance?