Maryland Court of Appeals case holds that pit bulls are "inherently dangerous" and owners or landlords with knowledge of their presence are strictly liable for any attacks. The Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog, and also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. Due to the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous."
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs H.B. 2780, creating an exception for certain dogs under the state cruelty law on April 12th. The provision restricts the ability of an incorporated city or town or a county to adopt an ordinance prohibiting or restricting any activity involving a dog if the activity is directly related to the business of shepherding or herding livestock and the activity is necessary for the safety of a human. Opponents of the bill contend that it is unnecessary, and was driven by a few disgruntled ranchers who wanted to avoid local anti-tethering laws for their ranch dogs.
India bans the use of live animals for dissection and experiments in educational and research institutions. According to the India Times, the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) issued guidelines to various medical and research institutions to stop using live animals in experiments and instead seek an alternative like computer modeling.
April 3rd: Idaho Governor Otter signed SB 1303 creating felony animal cruelty provision. On February 14, the Idaho Senate passed SB 1303 with just one "no" vote. The law creates the offense of aggravated cruelty for torture and an enhanced penalty provision for 3rd or subsequent convictions. Idaho was just one of three states including North Dakota and South Dakota without a felony cruelty law. Also see our Map of State Animal Cruelty Laws.
A new Connecticut regulation (effective March 1, 2012) restricts who may import or possess certain categories of wild animals. Wild animals are placed into four categories: Category One, Two, Three, and Four Wild Animals. No person except a municipal park, zoo, public nonprofit aquarium, nature center, museum, licensed exhibitor, registered lab, or research facility may import or possess any Category One Wild Animal (wolves, big cats, bears and large non-human primates). The regulation effectively outlaws possession of primates weighing over 35 lbs at maturity by a non-exempted person.
Pit bull dogs no longer automatically "vicious" in Ohio. Ohio Governor Kasich signed HB 14, which amends the state's dangerous dog laws. The previous laws, in effect for 25 years, declared pit bulls to be "inherently vicious." The new law redefines "vicious" and "dangerous" dogs, and also adds a new category of dogs: "nuisance dogs."
Check out the new searchable Bills/Legislation. Search for pending bills by State or by Topic in the left navigation.
Also check out the searchable Local Ordinances. Search for local codes by State or by Topic in the left navigation. Many codes are available under "Breed Specific Legislation."
U.S. v. Lawson, --- F.3d ----, 2012 WL 1372172 (4th Cir., 2012). Defendants appealed their conviction of violating, and conspiring to violate, the animal fighting prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Court of Appeals granted a new trial, but held, in part, that the AWA is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and that the provision of different elements of the crime in jurisdictions permitting animal fighting does not violate equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Barrios v. Safeway Ins. Co. --- So.3d ----, 2012 WL 1000864 (La.App. 4 Cir.,2012). Louisiana dog owners sued motorist for mental anguish and property damage after their dog was hit and killed by defendant's car. While a domestic animal is considered corporeal movable property in Louisiana, the court stated, "clearly, pets are not inanimate objects." The Court upheld that the damages award of $10,000 because the dog was killed as a result of motorist's negligence, the owners were nearby and immediately arrived at scene to find their beloved dog dead, the dog was extremely valuable to owners, who had a close family-like relationship with dog for approximately 12 years, and the loss caused the owners to suffer psychic trauma.
Hastings v. Sauve, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2012 WL 1129275 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2012). After plaintiff motorist was injured after hitting a cow that had wandered onto the highway, she sued farm owner, operator of cattle-shipping business, and operator's assistant, alleging that defendants were negligent in not properly confining cow to its pasture. The Supreme Court held that, since the cow was a domestic animal, injury claims could only proceed under strict liability theory based on owner's knowledge of animal's vicious propensities. There was no evidence that cow had a vicious or abnormal propensity, or that cow's owner knew of propensity, as required to support a strict liability claim. Thus, none of the defendants were liable for negligently failing to restrain the cow.
Dog Case of the Month
Evidence of a fence with gaps and dog with loose collar in unfenced backyard sufficient to support misdemeanor conviction for failure to restrain a dog in Indiana. Boss v. State, --- N.E.2d ----, 2012 WL 1066099 (Ind.App.). Defendant appealed her convictions of misdemeanor failure to restrain a dog and misdemeanor harboring a non-immunized dog after her dogs attacked a neighbor and a witness to the incident causing serious injury to both parties. The Court of Appeals held that evidence supported her convictions for failure to restrain dogs because her fence had gaps through which the dogs could escape, and another dog was in the unfenced backyard, with only a loose collar through which his head easily slipped. Evidence supported her convictions for harboring dogs that had not been immunized against rabies because defendant did not show proof that dogs had been immunized, which supported inferences that she was aware of the high probability that the dogs had not been immunized.
You can find collections of state laws by topic through maps or comparative tables of laws. The maps link to the text of the laws, while the tables present the information in organized columns. See the Map Page for available maps of state laws or select a topic below:
See the Comparative Tables Page for comparative tables of state laws or select a topic below:
Topic Areas (2011)
These topics were added in 2011. To select from over 60 animal law topics, see the "Select by Topic" in the left navigation.
May is here and spring is in full swing. With spring, comes nesting season for many species of birds. You might be surprised that some states have laws that protect only certain nesting birds while others protect birds nesting in unusual places. For example, in Ohio, the eggs and nest of nongame birds are protected under state law. However, European starlings, English sparrows, and common pigeons, other than homing pigeons, may be killed at any time and their nests or eggs may be destroyed at any time. California law states that every person who, within any public cemetery or burying-ground kills, wounds, or traps any bird, or destroys any bird's nest other than swallows' nests, or removes any eggs or young birds from any nest, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Finally, while Oklahoma also protects birds or nests resting within any public cemetery or burying ground, violation of this section is punishable by a fine of only $5.00 for each offense.
Check back frequently to read more of these interesting laws!
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs 
India bans the use of live animals for dissection and experiments in educational and research institutions. According to the 
April 3rd: Idaho Governor Otter signed SB 1303 creating felony animal cruelty provision. On February 14, the Idaho Senate passed 
A 
Pit bull dogs no longer automatically "vicious" in Ohio. Ohio Governor Kasich signed 