And a shelter worker goes to take the dog for a walk that has shown no signs of aggression when it was picked up, brought in, or at any time since it has been in their care, is the woman at fault if the dog makes an unprovoked vicious attack that causes them great bodily injury such as the loss of a limb of two? Would the person be at fault because they trusted the evaluation? Should certain dog breeds immediately be put down because you may not be able to trust the evaluation and the dog might make an unprovoked attack? It seems to me that if the shelter worker would be considered at fault for thinking evaluations should be correct and for trying to do their job, that the only way they couldn't be at fault was if they never had to deal with these certain breed dogs because they should automatically be put down, and if the worker goes in anyways to tend to one of the certain breeds even though the evaluation showed no risk, then she would be at fault for not knowing that some breeds you should never trust the evaluation and they should be destroyed with minimal contact with the animal.
I don't think the above, I don't think certain breeds should be destroyed and not adopted out, but if the worker is going to be considered at fault by some people, then maybe they should be?
Flower, I've missed part of your and Knny's pissing match, so I'm going to try to answer this based on my experiences. I've worked with animal shelters and rescue dogs (primarily breeds that are labeled "dangerous" by some media sources such as pitbulls, mastiffs, german shepards, and dobermans). In the situation that you describe, the shelter worker would be liable for what that dog does and the dog would most likely be destroyed. It boils down to repsonsible handling of the dog and controlling the animal. You have to be a responsible person with a dog, even if its a foster animal that you do not own. When people learn this, we will see a significant decrease in dog related issues. Responsibility includes anticipating and taking the steps to avoid confrontation with the dogs you are in charge of.
I personally had a situation with one of the foster pits when I was in veterinary school. Basically the neighbors dog and this dog got into a fight in my yard. The neighbors dog was off leash. I personally evaluated the foster dog and he was evaluated as a "friendly, nonaggressive dog". I had 5 other dogs in my house that he not one time got into it with----I still think the neighbors dog started the fight, but it became a moot point. The rescue was cited with a warning by animal control for allowing the fight to happen. I cleaned up and provided antibiotics for the bite wounds of both dogs (if I hadn't been a veterinary student, I would have had to pay for veterinary care out of pocket) and the neighbor was cited for having their dog off a leash off their property.
The problem with these kind of situations as a whole/universal ruling is that there are no universal federal or state pet laws in the US. What happened to me happend in one town in one state, but in another it may have been very, very different depending on the animal control officer and the judge involved. Hell, its illegal in some places to own pitbulls and at the same time they run free in other juristictions. That "freedom of control" of animal control laws by local juristictions also means that there is absolutely no consistancy with interpretation of the law and that things very greately from one place to the other depending on how stupid the city council/county government enacting the laws are when they are passed.