Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bohan v. Ritzo | 679 A.2d 597 (N.H.,1996) | 141 N.H. 210 (N.H.,1996) |
In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19. |
Case | |
| Bonner v. Martino | 927 So.2d 564 (La.App. 5 Cir., 2006) | 2006 WL 782710 (La.App. 5 Cir.) |
Plaintiff-housekeeper brought an action against her employers and their liability insurance providers after the employers' dog jumped up on a door that subsequently injured the plaintiff. In affirming the trial court's granting of defendants' motion for summary judgment, the appellate court held that housekeeper did not demonstrate that dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm. |
Case | |
| Boosman v. Moudy | 488 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.App. 1972) |
In this Missouri case, an action was brought on behalf of a child who was bitten by a dog (a large dog of the malemute breed). After the lower court entered judgment against the dog owner, the owner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's evidence demonstrated that the dog had become ill-natured and had acquired the persistent menacing habit of growling, bristling and snapping at people. Such behavior was repeatedly brought to the attention of the owner's wife prior to time dog bit child. This evidence, together with owner's evidence that his daughter had encouraged the dog to play tug-of-war with her clothing, supported the verdict in favor of the plaintiff that the injury to child resulted from the propensity of the dog to do bodily harm, either in anger or from playfulness.
|
Case | ||
| Boss v. State | 964 N.E.2d 931 (Ind.App.,2012) | 2012 WL 1066099 (Ind.App.,2012) | 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. Evidence supported her convictions for failure to restrain dogs because her fence had gaps through which the dogs could escape, and another dog was wearing only a loose collar. Evidence supported her convictions for harboring dogs that had not been immunized against rabies because she 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, and therefore, she knowingly harbored non-immunized dogs. | Case | |
| Bowden v. Monroe County Commission | 800 S.E.2d 252 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | 239 W. Va. 214, 2017 WL 2224052 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | The Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her late husband, filed a complaint after he was attacked and killed by American Pit Bull Terriers while taking a walk near his home. The Plaintiff filed against the Defendants, Monroe County, the County Dog Warden Ms. Green, and other defendants, alleging, negligence in performing their statutory duties by allowing vicious dogs to remain at large, and wrongful death. The Plaintiff also sought punitive damages. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and asserted a defense based upon the public duty doctrine. The Circuit Court, Monroe County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit Court and remanded. The Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed for determining whether a special relationship existed between the county and the victim such as whether: (1) the dog warden assumed an affirmative duty to act on the victim's behalf, (2) the dog warden was aware that inaction could lead to harm, (3) the dog warden had direct contact with the victim's wife regarding vicious nature of dogs; and (4) the victim's wife justifiably relied on assurances from dog warden. | Case | |
| Brans v. Extrom | 701 N.W.2d 163 (Mich.App.,2005) | 266 Mich.App. 216 (Mich.App.,2005) |
When the plaintiff accidentally stepped on the dog, the dog bit him. On the statutory claim, the jury found that the biting was with provocation even though from an unintentional act. On the common law claim, the jury found that the incident did not result from the abnormally dangerous propensities of the dog. The court affirmed, finding the trial court correctly instructed the jury that an unintentional act could constitute provocation under the dog-bite statute. |
Case | |
| Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States | Linda S. Weiss | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The author discusses the current state of breed-specific legislation (BSL) in several states, examining the efficacy of each law and the application to commonly assumed "dangerous breeds" of dogs. Upon investigation, the author concludes BSL is not an effective means of regulating canine behavior in communities. |
Article | |
| BREEDLOVE v. HARDY | 110 S.E. 358 (Va. 1922) | 132 Va. 11 (1922) |
This Virginia case concerned the shooting of plaintiff's companion animal where defendant alleged that the dog was worrying his livestock. The court reversed judgment for defendant, finding that defendant’s act of killing dog while not engaged in the act of “worrying the livestock,” was not authorized within the statute. |
Case | |
| Brent v. Kimball | 60 Ill. 211 (1871) | 1871 WL 8118 (Ill.), 14 Am.Rep. 35 (Ill. 1871) |
This was an action of trespass, brought by appellant against appellee, for the alleged wrongful killing, by the latter, of appellant's dog. Plaintiff sought recovery for his dog that was shot and killed when it entered into defendant/neighbor’s backyard. The Court held that the plaintiff could recover at least nominal damages, regardless of the fact that the animal had no actual market value. |
Case | |
| Brief Overview of Dangerous Dog Laws | Charlotte Walden | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article provides a general overview of the most common parts of a Dangerous Dog Statute, including common points of litigation, criticism, and emerging trends. | Article |