Results
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners' Insurance Companies | Larry Cunningham | 11 Conn. Ins. L.J. 1 (2004) |
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. |
Article |
| OREGON DOG CONTROL LAWS AND DUE PROCESS: A CASE STUDY | Christopher C. Eck and Robert E. Bovett | 4 Animal L. 95 (1998) | Mr. Eck and Mr. Bovett examine the inequities and inconsistencies in Oregon dog control laws and due process concerns arising from them. The authors outline constitutional requirements that need to be enforced to ensure protection against unreasonable government actions in cases involving these laws. | Article |
| Commentary: Bermudez v. Hanan | John Ensminger | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
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. |
Article |
| There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With A Negligence Standard In Dog Bite Cases | Lynn A. Epstein | 13 Animal Law 129 (2006) |
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. |
Article |
| Detailed Discussion Landowner and Landlord Liability for Dangerous Animals | David S. Favre | Michigan State University College of Law |
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. |
Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Dog Bite Laws | David S. Favre | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a detailed discussion of dog bite law and liability. It includes an introduction to tort law as well as common torts involving dogs. An examination of strict liability and vicious propensity is also included. |
Article |
| Who Let the Dangerous Dogs Out? The German State's Hasty Legislative Action, the Federal Law on Dangerous Dogs and the "Kampfhunde" Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court | Claudia E. Haupt | 2 Journal of Animal Law 27 (2006) |
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. |
Article |
| Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma | Safia Gray Hussain | 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2847 (April 2006) |
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. |
Article |
| Detailed Discussion of Breed Specific Legislation | Anna Jones | Animal Legal & Historical Center | This paper first examines the anatomy of a typical breed ban and outlines which dogs are restricted and what tests are used to identify them. Next, it explores the history of breed bans and their introduction into modern society – focusing in particular on the 1980’s media coverage of fatal dog attacks that spread fear and fueled the passage of BSL. The paper finally considers the current status of breed specific legislation. | Article |
| Dangerous Dog Laws: Failing to Give Mans Best Friend a Fair Shake at Justice | Cynthia A. McNeely & Sarah A. Lindquist | 3 J. Animal L. 99 (2007) |
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. |
Article |