Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Template for Country topical intro | Template for country topical introductions. | Policy | ||||||||
| Justice by and through Mosiman v. Vercher | 518 P.3d 131 (2022), review denied, 370 Or. 789, 524 P.3d 964 (2023) | 321 Or.App. 439 (Or.App., 2022) | The Oregon Court of Appeals, as a matter of first impression, considers whether a horse has the legal capacity to sue in an Oregon court. The Executive Director of Sound Equine Options (SEO), Kim Mosiman, filed a complaint naming a horse (“Justice”)as plaintiff with the Mosiman acting as his guardian, and claiming negligence against his former owner. In the instant appeal, Mosiman challenges the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. In 2017, defendant's neighbor persuaded defendant to seek veterinary care for her horse. The veterinarian found the horse to be about 300 pounds underweight with significant walking difficulties and other maladies. The horse was voluntarily surrendered to Mosiman who eventually nursed the animal back to good health. In 2018, Mosiman filed a complaint on Justice's behalf for a single claim of negligence per se, alleging that defendant violated the Oregon anti-cruelty statute ORS 167.330(1) by failing to provide minimum care. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that a horse lacks the legal capacity to sue and the court granted dismissal. Specifically, the trial court expressed concern over the "profound implications" of allowing a non-human animal to sue and stated that an appellate court could come to a different conclusion by "wad[ing] into the public policy debate involving the evolution of animal rights." Here, the appellate court first found no statutory authority for a court to appoint a guardian for an animal because "a horse inherently lacks self-determination and the ability to express its wishes in a manner the legal system would recognize." The animal has a "distinctive incapacity" that sets it apart from humans with legal disabilities that require appointment of a legal guardian. The court reaffirmed the law's treatment of animals as personal property and found no support in the precedent for permitting an animal to vindicate its own legal rights. While Oregon's animal welfare laws recognize animals as beings capable of feeling pain, this makes them a special type of property and imposes duties on the human owners rather than rights to the animal victims. The court held that only human beings and legislatively-created legal entities are persons with the capacity to sue under Oregon common law. The court emphasized that this holding does not prevent Oregon laws from ever recognizing an animal as a legal person, but the courts are not the appropriate vehicle to do that. Accordingly, this court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. | Case | ||||||
| Daughen v. Fox | 539 A.2d 858 (Pa. Super. 1988) |
Plaintiffs brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship after defendant animal hospital performed unnecessary surgery based on a mix-up of x-rays. The court denied the first claim, finding the defendant's conduct did not meet the "extreme and outrageous" conduct test. With regard to plaintiff's claim for loss of a unique chattel and for loss of the dog's companionship and comfort, the court observed that, under Pennsylvania law, a dog is personal property, and, under no circumstances under the law of Pennsylvania, may there be recovery for loss of companionship due to the death of an animal. |
Case | |||||||
| Ladnier v. Hester | 98 So.3d 1074 (Miss.App., 2011) | 2011 WL 5027176 (Miss.App.) |
Plaintiff motorist sued horse owner for negligence after he collided with the horse that was loose on the highway. The Court of Appeals sustained summary judgment for owner because the motorist produced no evidence that owner 1) had failed to act with reasonable care in enclosing his horses, 2) that horse had a propensity to escape or cause injury that gave rise to a heightened duty on owner's part, and 3) motorist produced no circumstantial evidence that would imply negligence, such as a dilapidated fence. This judgment was Reversed by Ladnier v. Hester, 98 So.3d 1025 (Miss., 2012). |
Case | ||||||
| CA - Vehicle - § 23117. Transportation of animals; enclosure or restraint requirements | West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 23117 | CA VEHICLE § 23117 | This California law prohibits any person from transporting any animal in the open back of a vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle has sides that extend 46" vertically, or the animal is secured in a cage and cross-tethered to prevent it from jumping out of the vehicle. The law targets the transporting of dogs in the back of pickup trucks. Exclusions include the transportation of livestock and farm dogs. | Statute | ||||||
| JP - Cruelty - LAW CONCERNING THE PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS | Law No. 105, October 1, 1973 |
Article 1 states that, "The purpose of this Law is to prescribe matters relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals, the appropriate treatment of animals and other matters relating to the protection of animals, and to engender a feeling of love for animals among the people, thereby contributing to the development of respect for life and sentiments of amity and peace; and to prescribe matters relating to the control of animals, thereby preventing harm being done by animals to human life, body and property." |
Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 1 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| UK - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 | 2021 c.21 | This Act increased the period that judges may impose prison sentences on those that breach the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (applicable in England and Wales). The Act came into force on 29 June 2021. Imprisonment has increased to 5 years (and/or an unlimited fine) for certain offences where a defendant is convicted on indictment at the Crown Court. This includes the offences of unnecessary suffering and dog fighting. Imprisonment on summary conviction for these offences at the Magistrates' Court is increased to 12 months, or a fine, or both. | Statute | |||||||
| Trummer v. Niewisch | 792 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y., 2005) |
A woman fell from a horse during a riding lesson when her horse was frightened. The woman brought claims against the riding facility and riding instructor for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning horses becoming frightened is an inherent risk when riding. |
Case | |||||||
| AL - Initiatives - Amendment 5, Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife | Amendment 5 (2014) | Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing." | Statute |