Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Northern Municipailities Act (dangerous animal) | 2010, c.N-5.2, s.395; 2018, c A-21.2, s.40. | Saskatchewan's The Municipalities Act, The Cities Act and The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 provide the basic legislative framework for all of the province's municipalities, and give municipalities what is referred to as "Natural Persons Power." This term is commonly understood to mean that municipalities possess all of the same powers that a normal person would. Essentially, a municipality can take any action that a natural person or business could to carry out its purposes unless or until legislation prohibits an action or places limitations or conditions on an action. Northern municipalities have specific authority to declare any animal or class or classes of animal to be dangerous. Legislative provisions within The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 respecting dangerous dogs may meet local needs. | Statute | ||
| Canada - Yukon Statutes - Dog Act | R.S.Y. 2002, c. 59 | This set of laws comprises the Yukon Dog Act. The law provides that an owner must keep his or her dog fed and watered and not punish it to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary. Dogs found at large contrary to the Act are impounded for a period of five days for owners to reclaim them. The Act also states that a person may kill a dog that is running at large in the act of pursuing, worrying, injuring or destroying cattle, horses, sheep, pigs or poultry. | Statute | ||
| Canada's Dangerous Dog Law | Jacquelyn Shaw |
Brief Summary of Canada's Dangerous Dog Laws
|
Topical Introduction | ||
| Cantore v. Costantine | --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2023 WL 7560690 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2023) | No. 2022-00077, 622356/19, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05708 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Nov. 15, 2023) | This is an appeal of a personal injury case brought by plaintiff, the mother of the injured child, against the owners of a dog that caused the injury and the owners of the restaurant where the injury occurred. The injury took place at a dog-friendly restaurant both parties were dining at, where the dog owned by defendants bit a three-year-old infant. Plaintiff alleges that the restaurant owners knew of the dog’s vicious propensities but allowed it on the premises, and are liable along with the owners of the dog for the injuries sustained by her child. Defendant restaurant owners contend that they did not know of the dog’s vicious propensities, and that their restaurant requires that dogs be leashed and the dog was leashed at the time of the bite. Plaintiff argues that, under the Hewitt case, a standard negligence analysis should be used rather than an analysis based on knowledge of vicious propensities. Plaintiffs also argue defendant restaurant owners owed a duty of care to their customers, which was breached by allowing a dangerous dog on the premises. The lower court denied defendants motion for summary judgment because there were unresolved issues of fact as to the restaurant defendants’ duty to their patrons and the foreseeability of the injury. This appeal followed. On appeal, the court reversed the order of the lower court because defendants established that they did not have any knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog and that they exercised reasonable care through their signage and policies to protect restaurant patrons from the risk of harm that allowing animals on the premises poses. Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted. | Case | |
| Carrasquillo v. Carlson | 880 A.2d 904 (Conn.App., 2005) | 90 Conn.App. 705; 2005 WL 1983613 (Conn.App.) |
A Connecticut motorist brought a negligence action against a dog owner, seeking to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he took evasive action to avoid hitting dog. The Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, granted the dog owner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that the record was adequate for appellate review; the dog owner exercised reasonable control while walking dog; the statute allowing imposition of fine or imprisonment or both on owner of dog that interferes with motor vehicle did not apply; and the dog owner demonstrated that motorist would be unable to cure legal defects in complaint even if permitted to replead. |
Case | |
| Carroll v. State | 922 N.E.2d 755 (Ind.App., 2010) | 2010 WL 932363 (Ind.App.) |
Defendant Lee Carroll appealed his sentence after the trial court accepted his plea of guilty to two counts of class A misdemeanor dog bite resulting in serious bodily injury. While the court noted that Defendant's lack of criminal history was a mitigating factor, the "great personal injury" suffered by the victim far exceeded any mitigation. On each count, the trial court sentenced Carroll to 365 days, with four days suspended, and ordered “both” to “run consecutive to one another.” On appeal, Defendant argued that any consideration of the his dogs' breed was improper. However, the court found that the other evidence was sufficient to support his sentence (in a footnote the court addressed it directly: "We need not address whether the trial court erred to the extent it found the breed of his dogs to be an aggravator..."). The court was not persuaded that the nature of the offenses or the character of the offender justified revising his sentence. |
Case | |
| Carter v. Ide | 188 S.E.2d 275 (Ga.App. 1972) | 125 Ga.App. 557 (Ga.App. 1972) |
This Georgia case involves an action for injuries received by a boy after he was attacked by the defendant's dog. The lower court granted summary judgment to the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that where there was no showing that the dog ever so much as growled at a human being before the attack, the owner of dog was not liable for injuries. Evidence that the dog previously chased a cat and had engaged in a fight with another dog was insufficient to show the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious tendencies toward humans to create liability for the owner.
|
Case | |
| Carter v. Metro North Associates | 255 A.D.2d 251, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10266 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,1998) | 255 A.D.2d 251, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 10266 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,1998) |
In this New York case, a tenant sued his landlords for injuries after he was bitten on face by pit bull owned by another tenant. The lower court denied the landlords' motion for summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment for tenant on issue of liability. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that the trial court erroneously took judicial notice of vicious nature of breed of pit bulls as a whole. In fact, the court found that the IAS court "erred in circumventing the requirement for evidence concerning the particular animal by purporting to take judicial notice of the vicious nature of the breed as a whole." Thus, the landlords were not strictly liable for the tenant's injuries where there was no evidence indicating that the dog had ever attacked any other person or previously displayed any vicious behavior. |
Case | |
| Carter v. Metro North Assocs. | 680 N.Y.S.2d 239, 240 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) | 255 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) | In this case, a tenant sued her landlord for injuries sustained when the tenant was bitten on the face by a pit bull owned by another tenant. The court held that before a pet owner, or the landlord of the building in which the pet lives, may be held strictly liable for an injury inflicted by the animal, the plaintiff must establish both (1) that the animal had vicious propensities and (2) that the defendant knew or should have known of the animal's propensities. In this case, there was no evidence that the pit bull had vicious propensities, nor did any of the evidence support a finding that the landlord had, or should have had, knowledge of any such propensities. The appellate court found the lower court erred when it took "judicial notice of the vicious nature of the breed as a whole." The court noted that there are alternate opinions and evidence that preclude taking judicial notice that pit bulls are inherently vicious as a breed. The trial court order was reversed, judgment for plaintiff vacated, and complaint dismissed. | Case | |
| Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management | 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 40 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2006), | 2006 WL 2940764 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.), 43 Cal.App.4th 1360 | Plaintiff, Lila Chee, a resident and owner of a condominium unit, appealed from a judgment entered in favor of all defendants on her complaint seeking damages for personal injuries she suffered when a dog belonging to Olga Kiymaz, a tenant of another unit in the same complex, jumped on Chee. In affirming the lower court's award of summary judgment, this court held that the landlord had no duty in absence of landlord's actual knowledge of dog's dangerous propensities. Further, the landlord was not liable to owner for nuisance. Finally, the condominium covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) did not impose vicarious liability on landlord. | Case |
