[yorkietalkjilly]

I know when people attack other people, the family of the victim is most often left to shoulder all or the main cost of the medical and custodial care. Just because an animal does the damage, what makes one think ID'ing the pet owner will make victim medical care financial losses for the family any different. Even in the cases where there is insurance(and those seem less and less as so many rent/lease nowadays), homeowners' insurance is limited to certain contractual circumstances being met or they don't pay. They are writing in more and more waivers and exceptions and many just won't cover certain or dangerous animals at all. Without insurance, only voluntary payment or a court judgment against the legal liability of the owner can be obtained and that doesn't force them to pay at all - just says they are financially liable in the eyes of the law. They don't have to pay a cent if they can't or don't want. Just as in any attack, the victim usually winds up paying for all or most of their own care.