Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | T. C. A. §§ 44-8-408 - 413; §§ 44-17-101 - 601; T. C. A. § 5-1-120, § 6-54-135, § 39-14-205, § 39-14-213, § 44-14-104, § 70-4-103, § 70-4-112; § 70-4-118, § 70-4-122, § 70-2-214; § 4-1-343 | These Tennessee statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements for companion animal dealers, laws concerning damage done by dogs, and the Tennessee Spay/Neuter Law. | Statute | ||
| TN - Dangerous dog - § 44-17-120. Death or serious injury; destruction of dogs | T. C. A. § 44-17-120 | TN ST § 44-17-120 | This Tennessee statute provides that any dog which attacks a human and causes death or serious injury may be destroyed upon the order of the circuit court where the attack occurred. The owner shall be given notice that if he or she does not appear before the court within five days and show cause why the dog should not be destroyed, then the order shall issue and the dog shall be destroyed. This statute also allows certain counties to make ordinances to petition a general sessions court to provide for the disposition of dangerous dogs and/or dogs causing death or serious injury to humans or other animals. | Statute | |
| Tighe v. North Shore Animal League | 142 A.D.3d 607, 36 N.Y.S.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) | 36 N.Y.S.3d 500, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05807 | In May 2012, Tighe adopted a dog from the North Shore Animal League after having been warned that the dog was possessive regarding food. After taking the dog home, Tighe noticed that the dog exhibited aggressive behavior, such as jumping at the backyard fence and growling at her when she attempted to feed the dog. In July of 2012, the dog bit Tighe’s hand when she tried to pick up a cookie off of the floor. As a result, Tighe spent three days in the hospital due to severe blood loss and swelling. Additionally, in September of 2012, the dog bit Tighe in the face causing severe injuries. After the incident in September, Tighe filed suit against the North Shore Animal League to recover damages for negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed the claim of emotional distress but granted summary judgment in favor of Tighe with regard to the other claims of negligence. The North Shore Animal League appealed the lower court’s decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of New York overturned the lower court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the North Shore Animal League on all claims. The court found that the North Shore Animal League was not a proximate cause to Tighe’s injuries for failing to adequately warn her about the dog’s aggreesive behavior because Tighe learned of the dog’s aggressive behavior three months prior to the incident that caused Tighe’s injuries. According to the court, once Tighe learned of the dog’s aggressive tendencies, she was in the best position to take “precautionary measures to prevent harm to herself.” So, even if the North Shore Animal League had failed to warn Tighe of the dog’s aggressive tendencies prior to the adoption, Tighe “independently” learned of the dog’s aggressive behavior prior to the incident which eliminated the North Shore Animal League as being a proximate cause of her injuries. | Case | |
| Tighe v. N. Shore Animal League Am. | 36 N.Y.S.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) | 142 A.D.3d 607, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05807 |
In this New York case, the defendant appeals denial of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries after the dog she adopted from defendant-North Shore Animal League America bit plaintiff's face causing severe personal injuries. Plaintiff alleges causes of action that include negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interposed a claim for punitive damages. After defendant opposed the filing, plaintiff submitted evidence that the dog previously had been returned to defendant animal shelter after biting another individual in the face. This court noted that, under long-standing rule, the owner of a domestic animal who knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities is liable for harm. However, here, even if defendant failed to disclose the dog's vicious propensities, that breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. In fact, the dog showed aggressive behavior during the three-and-a-half months the plaintiff owned the dog (including a previous bite to plaintiff's hand). This, in effect, placed the plaintiff on notice of the dog's vicious propensities. The court found that the lower court erred by not granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. With regard to the reach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the court found that even if a transaction from an animal shelter is subject to the warranty, the plaintiff failed to notify defendant of the "nonconformity of the goods" (to wit, the dog) within a reasonable period of time. The order was reversed. |
Case | |
| Thurber v. Apmann | 91 A.D.3d 1257 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012) | 2012 WL 225395 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.); 936 N.Y.S.2d 789 |
In 2007, the plaintiff and defendant were walking their respective dogs when one of defendant's two dogs, a retired K-9 dog, attacked the plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages she received as a result. While each dog did received "handler protection" training (where a K-9 dog is trained to react to an aggressive attack on defendant while on duty), that situation had never arisen because the dogs acted in passive roles as explosive detection dogs. Plaintiff countered that the severity of the attack coupled with the dogs' breed and formal police training should have put defendant on notice of the dogs' vicious propensities. In affirming the summary judgment, this court found that the formal police training was not evidence of viciousness and there was no support to plaintiff's assertion that defendant kept the dogs as "guard dogs." |
Case | |
| 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 | |
| The Jaws That Bite, The Claws That Snatch | Joseph K. Scott | 62 LALR 303 (Fall, 2001) |
This article explores the incongruity between the recent Louisiana decision in State v. Michels that allowed for the presence of a seemingly vicious dog to sustain the element of "dangerous weapon" in an aggravated sexual battery conviction. Louisiana traditionally only allows inanimate objects to be construed as weapons for dangerous weapons charges. The author suggests the Louisiana judiciary should align itself with the national jurisprudence to allow animate objects be viewed as dangerous weapons for the purpose of criminal prosecutions. |
Article | |
| The Golden Retriever Rule: Alaska's Identity Privilege for Animal Adoption Agencies and for Adoptive Animal Owners | John J. Tiemessen | 21 Alaska L. Rev. 77 |
In this Comment, the authors examine recent national and Alaskan developments regarding a limited testimonial privilege for animal adoption agencies and adoptive owners. Unlike most testimonial privileges, this new privilege e did not exist at common law and has only a limited foundation in statutes or rules of evidence. The authors conclude by noting the effect this privilege has on replevin and conversion cases involving lost animals that have been adopted by new owners. |
Article | |
| 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 | |
| Terral v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. | 892 So.2d 732 (La.,2005) |
A motorcyclist hit a dog wandering on the road and sued the defendant under strict liability theory. The court found that the defendant was strictly liable because he owned the dog in fact. Although the dog was originally a stray, the court upheld a finding of ownership because the defendant regularly fed the dog and harbored it on his property. |
Case |