Dangerous Dog: Related Articles

This comment first addresses the established trend in Louisiana of holding dog owners ever more accountable for the damage their dogs cause. Second, this comment explores the emergence of criminal prosecution of dog owners around the country for their animal's actions and its impact on Louisiana jurisprudence. Third, this comment explores the possibility that the prosecution of an owner of a vicious dog might result in a conviction for either negligent homicide or negligent injuring in Louisiana. Finally, this comment proposes a legislative change that ensures those who own killer dogs and carelessly keep them will be punished.

Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The Author concludes by proposing a negligence standard to be applied in dog bite cases.

This overview explores the liability for both landowners and landlords for injuries to third parties caused by tenant's animals. As a general proposition, liability is imputed only where the landowner or landlord has a duty to a third party, which is usually based on knowledge of the vicious propensity of the animal. Further, the injury must be reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances. The paper sets forth the level of duty owed to different classes of third party visitors (licensees, invitees, and trespassers) as well as how the location of an attack affects landlord liability.

Part I of this Note examines the growing problem of dog bites and dog-bite related deaths ("canine homicides") through statistical analysis. This part also provides a description and history of pit bull terriers, currently the most frequent target of breed-based laws. Part II examines common criticisms and concerns that accompany each type of law, and provides an overview of additional legislation that has been enacted to reduce the number of dog bites and attacks. Finally, Part III concludes that breed-specific legislation is an ineffective and inefficient means of combating the dog-bite epidemic. This part argues that dangerous-dog laws are a more effective, albeit imperfect, solution to the problem and proposes non-breed-based supplemental legislation that can be enacted to reduce the public threat posed by dangerous dogs.

Compared to other non-human animals, dogs generally share a privileged relationship with humans. Recent government trends have been to classify dogs “dangerous” to force “irresponsible owners” to better control their dogs. While some “owners” are undeniably irresponsible and deserve to be held accountable, a fair analysis of some of the factual situations underlying dangerous dog classifications indicates that too many local governments declare dogs dangerous who are not truly dangerous. With the United States human population now at more than 300 million, it is foreseeable that this trend is only going to continue as developable land decreases, forcing humans to live closer together and to come into greater contact with neighbors' dogs.

This brief summary talks about the Canadian legal approach to dog-related injuries. It discusses the common law approach and the statutory response to dog-related injuries in Canada's provinces and territories.

This detailed legal discussion focuses on the Canadian legal approaches to dog-related injuries. The traditional common law doctrines of scienter and negligence are discussed, and compared with the legislative approaches of Canada's provinces and territories as well as Canadian federal criminal law. The article also discusses the similarities and differences between Canada's and the United States' incidence of dog-related injuries and some possible reasons for the differences.

This table, developed by Joyce Tischler of ALDF, summarizes the pertinent federal regulations and state laws related to dogs chasing wildlife. External links to state DNR sites listing further rules are also provided.

This article reviews state and federal causes of action that can be brought when a pet has been shot unlawfully and the different claims that are available depending on whether the shooter is a government employee, such as a police officer or animal control official, or an ordinary citizen. The articles also explores the various defenses that defendants may assert, including qualified immunity for government employees.

This summary examines the nature and authority of state and local dog laws. It also describes the general subjects included in dog laws, such as loose dogs and impoundment procedures. The concept of preemption of local laws is also defined.

This overview discusses the power of municipalities to enact ordinances. It then highlights some common subjects for animal care and control within municipal codes.

This brief overview examines the basic provisions of most state dog bite laws, including the traditional elements of negligence and principles of strict liability.

This brief overview discusses when and how a landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's animal. In short, it outlines what constitutes negligence for a landlord in such circumstances for most jurisdictions.