Results
Displaying 491 - 500 of 568
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | West's Ann.Cal.Food & Agric.Code § 30501 - 31683; West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3508; 3960 - 3961; West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 38792; West's Ann. Cal. Gov. Code § 25803; West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3340 - 3342.5 | These statutes represent California's dog laws. Included are provisions on county control of dogs, licensing, killing and seizure of dogs, and laws regarding dangerous or vicious dogs. | Statute | |
| CA - Dog, dangerous - § 31625. Seizure and impoundment pending hearing | West's Ann.Cal.Food & Agric.Code § 31625 | CA FOOD & AG § 31625 | This California statute allows an animal control officer or law enforcement officer to seize and impound the dog pending hearing if there is probable cause to believe the dog poses an immediate threat to public safety. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the city or county where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog, if the dog is later adjudicated potentially dangerous or vicious. | Statute |
| CA - Dog Park - § 831.7.5. Liability of public entity owning or operating a dog park; actions of a dog in the dog park | West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 831.7.5 | This law in the Government Code states that a public entity that owns or operates a dog park shall not be held liable for injury or death of a person or pet resulting solely from the actions of a dog in the dog park. | Statute | |
| CA - Dangerous - California Dangerous Dog Statutes | West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31601 - 31683; West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 - 3342.5; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121685; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 398 - 399.5 | CA FOOD & AG § 31601 - 31683; CA CIVIL § 3342 - 3342.5; CA HLTH & S § 121685;CA PENAL § 398 - 399.5 | This is the California statute for the rules and regulations regarding dangerous and/or vicious dogs. It defines what constitutes a dangerous and/or vicious dog, what is to be done with said dog(s), and provides a model provision for municipalities to follow. The other set of provisions contains the relevant dog bite law. California has strict liability for dog bites such that liability is imposed regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute |
| CA - Bite - Title 10. Of Crimes Against the Public Health and Safety (Dog Bite Laws) | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 398 - 399.5 | CA PENAL § 398 - 399.5 | If an owner of an animal knows that the animal bit another person, s/he shall provide the other person with his or her contact information and information about the animal. A violation is an infraction punishable by a fine. If any person who owns an animal and knows of its vicious propensities, allows it to run at large and the animal kills any person, the owner may be guilty of a felony. The court may order the removal of the animal or its destruction. | Statute |
| CA - Animal Control - Chapter 4. Animal Control | West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code §§ 121875 - 121945 | CA HLTH & S §§ 121875 - 121945 | Beyond being domestic pets, dogs provide many services to humans, such as tracking scents and guarding facilities. Below is a collection of California laws, collectively known as the Dog Act, that set out definitions, requirements, and penalties relating to guard dogs, tracking dogs, narcotics dogs, sentry dogs and the people who handle them. | Statute |
| C., M. M. M. s/ Denuncia Maltrato Animal; seguidos contra E. P. S., D.N.I. N° X- Causa Tita | Fallo 481/2021 | This court decision has two important aspects, where the judge recognizes families as multispecies, and non-human animals as sentient beings and subjects of rights. The facts of this case arose from a fatal encounter between the police officer and "Tita," a Pitbull-mix family dog, in March 2020 in the Province of Chubut in Argentina. "Tita" attacked an on-duty police officer, and, when Tita was walking away, the officer shot her in front of her family. The injury was so severe that Tita had to ultimately be put down. The judge, in this case, found that Tita was a non-human person and a daughter to her human family, as she and other companion animals had adapted so well to the family life, that it had turned the family into a multispecies one. Therefore, the loss of Tita was an irreparable one. The judge further stated that in today's world animals are not "things," they are sentient beings and they have the right that their life is respected. The holding of the court was also based on the case of Sandra, the orangutan, and the Universal declaration of animal rights. The police officer was sentenced to one year of suspended imprisonment, professional disqualification for two years, and to pay the attorney and court fees for the crimes of abuse of authority and damages. However, he was acquitted of the animal cruelty charges. Update: In September 2022, the Chubut's criminal chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (the highest tribunal in the province) heard the case on appeal. The court affirmed the verdict of the Trelew’s criminal chamber that set aside the guilty verdict entered against the police officer. The highest tribunal found that, at the incident, Tita was unleashed and unmuzzled. Also, she was aggressive toward the officer, barking and charging at him before he shot her. The tribunal concluded that the officer found himself in imminent danger, which justified his actions, and therefore, he was not guilty as he acted to defend himself. The tribunal found that Sandra's case and the Universal declaration of animal rights did not apply to Tita's case because there were circumstances in which it is necessary to end the life of an animal, and Sandra’s case was brought up as a habeas corpus on behalf of a hominid primate. The recognition of “subject of rights” was granted to Sandra based on the genetic similarity of her species to humans, which is 97%, as opposed to canines’ which is only 75%. It is important to note that the tribunal did not say anything in regard to the status of Tita as a member of her multispecies family. | Case | |
| Butcher v. Gay | 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 (Cal.App.5.Dist.) | 29 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal.App.5.Dist.) |
Plaintiff alleged that she had contracted Lyme disease "as a result of exposure to infested ticks" on respondent's property, and that respondent had "failed to spray the area, post signs or prevented [sic] domestic dog(s) from coming into contact with the plaintiff - jumping in her lap - thereby exposing her to a vector of the disease without her knowledge. Court found no duty toward the plaintiff and allow the motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff to stand. |
Case |
| Bushnell v. Mott | 254 S.W.3d 451 (Tex.,2008) | 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 681(2008); 2008 WL 820680 |
In this Texas case, the plaintiff (Bushnell) brought an action against the defendant (Mott) for her injuries sustained when defendant's dogs attacked plaintiff. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, and held that the owner of a dog not known to be vicious owes a duty to attempt to stop the dog from attacking a person after the attack has begun, and Mott's behavior after the attack had begun raises an issue of material fact whether Mott failed to exercise ordinary care over her dogs. |
Case |
| Brown by Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. | 158 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), adhered to on reh'g sub nom. Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc., 162 N.E.3d 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) | 158 N.E.3d 401 (Ind.App., 2020) | This case from Indiana explores whether an animal shelter had a duty to inform a dog adopter of a dog's vicious propensities. Plaintiffs (the Browns) appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. (“Southside”). The case stems from the adoption of a dog from defendant animal shelter. In 2014, the dog was surrendered by its owner to a neighboring animal shelter because it did not get along with another dog. The dog was then adopted to another party where it attacked the family's two-year-old boy, causing significant injuries. The dog was then surrendered to the county animal shelter, who recorded the bite incident upon intake of the dog. After the mandated quarantine, the dog was eventually transferred to defendant animal shelter who was informed of the bite according to deposition testimony. However, during an 8-day aggression observation, the dog showed no signs of aggression. In late 2015, plaintiffs adopted the dog with a release that stated the history of the dog was unknown and the shelter was released from all liability resulting from illness or actions by the dog. Less than a month later, the dog attacked the Brown's six-year-old daughter causing injuries to her face. In the trial court action by the Browns against Southside, the court granted the defendant's motion of summary judgment based on the adoption release and dismissed the case. In this instant appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals, the court focused on whether Southside owed a duty to the Browns to establish liability for the dog bite. The court found factual disputes remain as to whether Southside knew or should have known of the dog's past aggression and whether the knowledge from the volunteer who did intake for the dog imputed knowledge to the animal shelter. Additionally, the court indicated there was a question of fact whether Southside exercised reasonable care in evaluating the dog's behavioral history prior to adoption. Ultimately, the Court found that Southside had a duty to the Browns to inform them of the dog's past bite history, and factual issues relating to that duty preclude the granting of summary judgment. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Case |