Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 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This unpublished Washington case stems from an attack on plaintiff's dog by a neighbor's dog.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 | ||
| 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 | |
| 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 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 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 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 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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 |