Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| News Archives | This page provides archives of the news items that appeared on the website's front page. The month and year of the news story is listed. | Basic page | ||
| International Animal Welfare Promo |
|
Policy | ||
| Lieberman v. Powers | 873 N.E.2d 803 (Mass.App.Ct., 2007) | 70 Mass.App.Ct. 238 (2007), 2007 WL 2768668 (Mass.App.Ct.) |
In this Massachusetts case, Noah Lieberman sustained injuries when he was scratched and bitten by a cat while visiting a “cat lounge” at the Sheldon branch animal shelter, which was operated by the Animal Rescue League of Boston (ARL). Plaintiff alleged that his injuries resulted from the defendants' negligent design and maintenance of the cat lounge. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence, in the form of expert opinion, that an ordinarily prudent person in the circumstances of this case-which include the defendants' knowledge regarding the behavior (and potential for aggression) of cats-would have taken additional steps to ensure the safety of visitors to the cat lounge. At the very least, the defendants should have foreseen that the small size of the room, as well as the set-up (one food bowl, one litter box, two perches) and unsupervised operation of the cat lounge was such that it was more likely than not to increase stress in cats, which in turn made it more likely than not that the cats would behave aggressively. |
Case |
| Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc. | 614 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 2000) |
Plaintiff, a licensed horse exercise rider sued the operator of a horse racing facility after he had been injured when he was thrown off a horse that he had been exercising, when the horse became spooked by a kite on the Defendant’s premises. The court determined that the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) did not offer protection of immunity to the Defendant because the exercising was found to be an activity in preparation for a horse race and the EALA does not apply to “horse race meetings.” However, the Plaintiff had previously signed a release, which covered “all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises,” therefore, the Defendant was released from liability of negligence. |
Case | |
| De Lanoy v. Taylor | 452 P.3d 1036 (Or.App., 2019) | 300 Or. App. 517 (2019) | This Oregon case involves a dispute over who now owns a female whippet dog named "Isis." Isis was adopted from the local humane society and lived with the plaintiff and his family until 2014. In the summer of 2014, plaintiff asked his friend Rich to keep Isis while plaintiff moved to Florida. Both plaintiff and Rich understood that Rich was just caring for Isis and that plaintiff remained Isis' owner. Defendant is Rich's ex-girlfriend had a different understanding; that plaintiff had abandoned Isis and, as such, Isis became defendant's property. In 2016, plaintiff filed an action for replevin against defendant, seeking immediate return of Isis. Defendant countered with a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the dog was gifted to Rich - who subsequently abandoned the dog - and so defendant became the rightful owner. A bench trial ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff had gifted the dog or that Rich had abandoned the dog. On appeal, defendant raises a single procedural error, that the court erred by granting plaintiff replevin the procedures in ORCP 83 A were not followed. Notably, the court found that there was no ruling against defendant with regard to noncompliance of a court rule. More importantly, there was no challenge to the court's disposition of the declaratory judgement counterclaim. Thus, defendant presented no error in the disposition of her counterclaim. Accordingly, because the trial court declared plaintiff to be the lawful owner of Isis, and no one has challenged that declaration, the court did not reach defendant's arguments about the proper procedure for a replevin claim. | Case |
| State Veterinary Practice Laws | This map links to state veterinary practice codes for each state. | State map | ||
| MA - Pet Sales Age Restriction - Chapter 129. Livestock Disease Control | M.G.L.A. 129 § 39G; § 43 | MA ST 129 § 39G; § 43 | This statute provides that any dog or cat brought or shipped into the commonwealth shall be accompanied by an official health certificate issued by an accredited veterinarian, a copy of which shall be sent to the commissioner of agricultural resources. Further, a commercial establishment, pet shop, firm or corporation shall not import into the commonwealth, for sale or resale in the commonwealth, a cat or dog less than 8 weeks of age. | Statute |
| WA - Endangered Species - Chapter 77.15. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code | West's RCWA 77.15.120, 130, 135, 410, 420, 425, 430 | WA ST 77.15.120, 130, 135, 410, 420, 425, 430 | Under Washington endangered species provisions, a person is guilty of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the second degree if person hunts for, fishes for, possesses, maliciously harasses, or kills fish or wildlife, or possesses or intentionally destroys the nests or eggs of fish or wildlife; the fish or wildlife is designated by the commission as endangered; and the taking of the fish or wildlife or the destruction of the nests or eggs has not been authorized. Additionally, a person is guilty of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the first degree if the person has been previously convicted under the above provision within a five-year time period. Once convicted of unlawful taking of endangered fish or wildlife in the first degree (a class C felony), any licenses or tags used in connection with the crime are revoked and the person's privileges to hunt, fish, trap, or obtain licenses under this title are suspended for two years. | Statute |
| UT - South Jordan - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | JORDAN, UT., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.12.100 (1997) |
In South Jordan, Utah, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell any "pit bull terrier." There is an exception for dogs licensed prior to the effective date of the ordinance, but such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as the maintenance of $50,000 insurance for bodily injury or death. Such dogs must be properly confined or securely leashed and muzzled, and be implanted with an identification microchip. Any violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Rowlette v. Paul | 466 S.E.2d 37 (Ga. 1995) | 219 Ga.App. 597 (Ga. 1995) | This Georgia case involved a dog bite to a person who went to went to the Pauls' house in order to verify and update information for the Oglethorpe County Tax Assessor's Office. The court held that in the absence of any evidence showing that the owners of a dog had knowledge, prior to a mauling incident, that their dog had ever bitten another human being, the owners of the dog were not liable to the victim even though the dog's presence on the premises where the incident occurred was in violation of the county leash law. In order to support an action for damages under OCGA § 51-2-7, it is necessary to show that the dog was vicious or dangerous and that the owner had knowledge of this fact. | Case |