Results
Displaying 5171 - 5180 of 6844
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schriver v. Raptosh | 557 P.3d 398 (Idaho 2024) | No. 49818, 2024 WL 4395178 | This Idaho case addresses the recoverable damages for a pet owner following the death of a pet due to alleged veterinary malpractice and an unauthorized necropsy. The Schrivers sought non-economic damages, including emotional distress and loss of companionship, after their cat, Gypsy, died during a veterinary procedure and was subjected to a necropsy without their consent. The district court denied emotional distress damages under their trespass to chattels/conversion claim and granted summary judgment in favor of the veterinarian on claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and lack of informed consent. The court, however, applied the “value to owner” measure for economic damages, which the veterinarian cross-appealed. The court affirmed that pets are considered personal property under Idaho law, and damages for their loss are limited to economic value, excluding sentimental value or loss of companionship. Emotional distress damages are not recoverable under trespass to chattels or conversion claims but may be pursued under independent torts like intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court upheld the denial of negligent infliction of emotional distress, finding no duty of care owed by veterinarians to prevent emotional harm to pet owners. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim regarding the unauthorized necropsy, remanding it for jury determination as to whether the conduct was “extreme and outrageous.” The court also affirmed that lack of informed consent is not a standalone cause of action in veterinary malpractice cases, though it may inform claims of professional negligence. Finally, the court upheld the “value to owner” measure for economic damages, clarifying that it includes the pet’s unique characteristics but excludes sentimental value. The court denied the veterinarian’s request for attorney fees, as the primary issues of the litigation remain unresolved. | Case |
| Schwerdt v. Myers | 683 P.2d 547 (1984) | 297 Or. 273 (1984) |
This appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court related to the mental state requirement in determining an animal owner's liability for escape of cattle. The Oregon Supreme Court, on review, held that simple rather than criminal negligence was the correct level of culpability for determining an animal owner's liability, and damages are available under a statute making an animal owner liable if an animal is permitted to escape onto another's property. |
Case |
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - 2003 Proposal | 2003 Proposal, Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 | For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Scottish Executive (SE) issued a consultation paper on 21st March 2003 on proposals to amend the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. These proposals were aimed at addressing the specific problem of the lack of statutory powers available to local authorities to remove neglected farm livestock, which are suffering or at risk of suffering, to a place of safely. The responses from a number of organisations to that paper have shown a clear desire for a much wider reform of our existing animal welfare legislation. Ministers now wish to consider expanding the proposed amendment to the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and to introduce wider legislation aimed at consolidating and updating much of the existing animal welfare legislation in Scotland. The purpose of any new legislation will be to prevent cruelty to any animal and to set out the obligations of people to promote the welfare of all animals (including domestic pets) for which they are either permanently or temporarily responsible. This will include owning, managing, or in any way keeping any animal, including buying, selling and transporting. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 | 2006 asp 11 | An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare in Scotland. Part 1 of the Act contains detailed provisions concerning animal health and preventing the spread of disease. Activities that constitute offenses under Part 2 of the Act include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending animal fighting. Nothing in the Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | Scotland Act 2020 | Scotland's 2020 legislation increased maximum available penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences, involving domesticated or wild animals, up to 5 years imprisonment and unlimited fines. Serious crimes include animal fighting and causing unnecessary suffering. The Act also prevents those who attack service animals in the course of their duties from relying on self-defence. Further, the Act requires the courts to consider whether disqualification orders are necessary to protect animal welfare, and to provide its reasons for reaching its decision in every case that reaches court. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | 2020 asp 14 | This Act increased the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare and wildlife crimes in Scotland to five years imprisonment and unlimited fines. This includes penalties under the The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, and other animal welfare related legislation in Scotland. These include the offence of unnecessary suffering and animal fighting. The Act also incorporated 'Finn's Law' which will prevent those that harm service animals in the course of their duties from claiming that they did so in self-defence. The Act also creates new powers (by way of future secondary legislation) to impose fixed penalty notices for less serious offences. Further, the Act restricts licensing for the killing of seals, and provides mountain hares with general protection from killing. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Dogs, microchip - The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 | 2016 No. 58 | Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Slaughter - The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012 | 2012 No. 321 | These Regulations replace the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 for Scotland in respect of slaughterhouse activities (the 1995 Regulations continue to have full effect in England and Wales). Provisions include: certificates of competence and handling and stunning requirements for a number of farmed species. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Wild Mammals - Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 | 2002 asp 6 | An Act to prohibit deliberate hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The Act also makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of land to knowingly allow another person to hunt wild mammals with dogs on their land. Stalking and flushing is exempted in certain circumstances, for example, in order to protect livestock, providing food for animal or consumption, or controlling pest species. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Wildlife - Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 | Part 6 of this Act prohibits the killing, injuring or taking of seals. The same Part also provides a number of exceptions by licence, such as for the purpose of protecting the health and welfare of farmed fish; or preventing serious damage to fisheries or fish farms (section 110) | Statute |