Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Brief Summary of Breed Specific Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This article provides a brief summary of breed-specific legislation and the legal challenges to such laws. |
Article | |
| Brief Summary of Dangerous Dogs in the Laws of Canada | Jacquelyn A. Shaw | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This legal overview analyzes the Canadian legal approach to dog-related injuries. It discusses the common law approach under negligence and scienter. It then examines the statutory response to dog-related injuries in Canada's provinces and territories. |
Article | |
| Brief Summary of Dog Bite Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This brief overview examines the basic provisions of most state dog bite laws, including the traditional elements of negligence and principles of strict liability. |
Article | |
| Brief Summary of Landlord Liability for Injury by Tenant's Animals | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This brief overview discusses when and how a landlord may be liable for injuries caused by a tenant's animal. In short, it outlines what constitutes negligence for a landlord in such circumstances for most jurisdictions. |
Article | |
| Brief Summary of Local and State Dog Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This summary examines the nature and authority of state and local dog laws. It also describes the general subjects included in dog laws, such as loose dogs and impoundment procedures. The concept of preemption of local laws is also defined. |
Article | |
| Brinton v. Codoni | Not Reported in P.3d, 2009 WL 297006 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2009) |
This unpublished Washington case stems from an attack on plaintiff's dog by a neighbor's dog. Plaintiff sued for damages, alleging negligence and nuisance. The trial court ruled on partial summary judgment that the plaintiff's damages were limited, as a matter of law, to the dog's fair market value. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled to damages based on the dog's intrinsic value (i.e., utility and service and not sentimental attachment) and her emotional distress. On appeal, this court held that since the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing that her dog had no fair market value, the trial court properly limited damages to that value. Further, because the plaintiff's nuisance claims were grounded in negligence, she was not entitled to damages beyond those awarded for her negligence claim. |
Case | ||
| Brooks ex rel. Brooks v. Parshall | 806 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2006) | 25 A.D.3d 853, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 00064 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2006) |
In this New York case, a then seven-year-old boy was attending a gathering at the home of the owners of a German Shepard dog. According to the plaintiff, the dog growled at him when he arrived and allegedly growled at another man at the party sometime later. Defendant denied hearing the growl and t estimony showed that the boy continued to play with the dog throughout the party and into the next morning. When the boy was leaving in the morning, he attempted to “hug” the dog from behind when the dog turned and bit the boy in the face. In upholding defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court found that even if the dog had initially growled at the boy, that was not enough to establish that the dog had vicious propensities or that the owners had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities. |
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 | |
| 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 |