Results

Part I of this article gives an overview of the problem: dog breed discrimination by insurers, as well as a related problem of breed-specific legislation by some states. Part II analyzes the major scientific studies on dog bites, showing that no one has adequately proven that some breeds are more inherently dangerous than others. Part III shows that breed discrimination and breed-specific legislation are opposed by most veterinary and animal groups. Part IV demonstrates that insurers have been ignoring the unique and special role that pets play in millions of American homes. Part V shows how the insurance industry is a highly regulated industry which subjects itself to legislative control where, as here, the public is being harmed by underwriting decisions not driven by actuarial justification.

This article provides commentary on the case of Bermudez v. Hanan, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4397, 2013 NY Slip Op 51610(U), which concerned dog bite liability for a therapy dog.

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.

The article examines the legislative measures taken at the state and federal level in Germany to address the issue of dangerous dogs and the related decision of the Federal Constitutional Court which upheld an import ban on dangerous dogs while striking down a breeding ban and parts of a newly introduced section to the Criminal Code.