Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 537
Titlesort descending Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Abundant Animal Care, LLC v. Gray 316 Ga.App. 193 (Ga.App. 2012) 2012 WL 2125842 (Ga.App.)

While either shadowing her aunt or during her first day working at the veterinary clinic, the plaintiff was bitten three times by a dog she had taken outside to exercise. Plaintiff subsequently filed numerous claims against the veterinary clinic, including: negligence; negligence per se; nuisance; and violation of a premise liability and a dangerous dog statute. After the lower court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, the defendant appealed to the Georgia appellate court. The appeals court stated that in a dog bite case, the plaintiff needed to produce evidence that the dog had a vicious propensity. Since the plaintiff failed to produce such evidence, the court held the defendant should have been granted a motion for summary judgment on its premise liability, nuisance, dangerous dog statute, and negligence per se claims. As for the negligence claim, the court held the defendant should have been granted a motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff was not aware of internal procedures to protect invitees and because the injuries were not proximately caused by negligent supervision. The lower court's judgment was therefore reversed.

Case
AK - Bite - § 03.55.030. Dogs that annoy or bite animals or birds AS § 03.55.030 AK ST § 03.55.030

This Alaska statute provides that any dog that habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild, or evinces a disposition which makes it likely that it will without provocation bite an animal or fowl, may be lawfully killed by any person when it is found at large. The owner or keeper of the dog, if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it.

Statute
AK - Dogs - Title 3. Agriculture and Animals. Chapter 55. Dogs. AS § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 AK ST § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140

This collection reflects Alaska's dog laws. The primary dog laws give permission to kill dangerous dogs that are running at large or those that are chasing livestock.  It also defines a dangerous dog - "Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious . . ."  Notably, "[a] ny person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large."  This section also allows a village council of an unincorporated village to destroy loose dogs in the village or otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. Other laws concern the state dog and harming police dogs.

Statute
AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs AS § 03.55.070 AK ST § 03.55.070

This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities.  The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village.

Statute
AL - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-1 - 29; § 3-6-1 - 4; § 3-6A-1 - 8; § 3-7A-1 - 16; § 3-8-1; § 9-11-305 - 307; § 9-11-238; § 45-37A-53.01 AL ST § 3-1-1 - 29; § 3-6-1 - 4; § 3-6A-1 - 8; § 3-7A-1 - 16; § 3-8-1; § 9-11-305 - 307; § 9-11-238; § 45-37A-53.01

These statutes comprise Alabama's relevant dog laws. Included among the provisions are licensing requirements, dangerous dog provisions, and the chapter on rabies.

Statute
AL - Dog Bite/Dangerous Animal - Liability of Owners of Dogs Biting or Injuring Persons. Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-1 - 6; § 3-6-1 - 4; Ala.Code 1975 § 3-6A-1 - 8; § 3-7A-9 AL ST § 3-1-1 - 6; AL ST § 3-6-1 - 4; AL ST § 3-7A-9

These Alabama statutes outline the state's dog bite law.  The law first provides that, when any person owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and, as a result of his or her careless management or allowing the dog to go at liberty, and another person, without fault is injured, such owner shall be liable in damages for such injury.  If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be, the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so bitten or injured.  This apparent strict liability has a mitigation provision that states that the owner of such dog shall be entitled to plead and prove in mitigation of damages that he had no knowledge of any circumstances indicating such dog to be or to have been vicious or dangerous.  If an owner, however, is aware that his or her dog is rabid at the time of the bite, he or she shall be liable for twice the damages sustained.

Statute
Allanson v. Toncich 2002 WL 1897936 (Austrailia) 2002 WASCA 216

Appeal uphold the judgement against the dog owner for damages, but recalculates damages upward.

Case
Allen v. Camp 70 So. 290 (Ala.App. 1915) 14 Ala.App. 341 (1915)

Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing.

Case
American Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989) 113 Wash.2d 213 (Wash.1989)
In this Washington case, plaintiff brought suit against the City of Yakima challenging an ordinance that banned “pit bulls” dogs. The Superior Court, Yakima County, granted city's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs first argued that the ordinance is vague because a person of ordinary intelligence cannot tell what is prohibited.  The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the City used adequate standards for identification in the professional standards and illustrations to show that a particular dog meets the professional standard. Thus, the Court found that the ordinance gave sufficient notice of what was conduct prohibited. Summary judgment for the City was affirmed.
Case
American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Lynn 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989)

This is an appeal by American Dog Owners Association from a judgment upholding two of three city of Lynn ordinances which restrict ownership of certain dogs within the city limits. The lower court found that one of three animal control ordinances regulating “pit bulls” was unconstitutional. First, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the first two ordinances were repealed by passage of third which was intended to treat subject of pit bulls comprehensively. However, the court found that the third ordinance which attempted to define pit bull by breed was unconstitutionally vague. The court stated that, "if identification by breed name does not provide sufficient ascertainable standards for enforcement, then the “definition” of “Pit Bull” in the fourth ordinance, which is devoid of any reference to a particular breed, but relies instead on the even less clear 'common understanding and usage' of the term 'Pit Bull,' is not sufficiently definite to meet due process requirements."

Case

Pages