Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VT - Trapping - § 4254c. Notice of trapping; dog or cat | 10 V.S.A. § 4254c | This Vermont law, effective January of 2019, states that a person who incidentally traps a dog or cat shall notify a fish and wildlife warden or the Department within 24 hours after discovery of the trapped dog or cat. The Department shall maintain records of all reports of incidentally trapped dogs or cats submitted under this section, and the reports shall include the disposition of each incidentally trapped dog or cat. | Statute | |
| OK - Trust - § 199. Validity of a trust for the care of domestic or pet animals. | 60 Okl. St. Ann. § 199 | OK ST T. 60 § 199 | Oklahoma enacted a "pet trust" law in 2010. The law provides that a trust for the care of designated domestic or pet animals is valid and terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. If no trustee is named, the court shall appoint one. | Statute |
| Council of the State, Sentencia 22.592 of May 23, 2012 | Sentencia 22.592 of May 23, 2012 | Appeal, brought by the Plaintiff, who sought compensation for negligence on the part of the municipality of Anserma for the wrongful death of her husband, who died in the corrals of the slaughterhouse of Anserma when a bull charged him, causing him to fall and hit his head. The Plaintiff alleged that the slaughterhouse facilities were in poor condition, which was the cause of her husband’s death. If the facilities have been in good condition, he would not have had the accident. The court analyzed whether the damage was a result of the municipality's negligence as it did not maintained the facilities in a safe condition, or, if alternatively, it was an unfortunate accident not imputable to the Defendant. The court concluded that the Plaintiff did not present enough evidence to prove that the conditions of the facilities were the cause of the death of her husband. The court also found that the municipality was not in charge of the cattle in the slaughterhouse. Therefore, the damages were not imputable to the municipality. Furthermore, the court found the deceased was not an employee of the municipality, he was an independent employee that was hired by the slaughterhouse workers to assist them during the slaughter of cattle. The Court affirms the decision of the lower court and declares an exception of unconstitutionality of the expression “and if he alleges that he was not able to avoid the damage, he will not be heard.” of the Article 2354 of the Civil Code In its reasoning, the court determined that the accident was a result of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk on the part of the deceased, and not a result of the behavior of the animal. The court addressed Article 2354 of the Civil Code, that established that the caretaker of a fierce animal that does not report any benefit for the owner will be responsible for the damages the animal may cause, but if he alleges that if the damages were unavoidable, he will not be heard. The court declared unconstitutional the line “ and if he alleges that he was not able to avoid the damage, he will not be heard.” The court stated that it was inappropriate to address this scenario that involves responsibility derived from the behavior of animals under the parameters in the Civil Code that treated animals as goods. As today, it was of common acceptance that animals are sentient beings. Animals just as disabled people and other beings had dignity in themselves. They have a vital purpose, so much that they can enter a direct and permanent relationship with humans. The court continues to say that without this idea, the notion of legal capacity and the recognition of fundamental rights for legal persons could not exist. Animals should not be compared to objects or things, as they have dignity. The court recognized that animals and other living beings have their own value, and that even if it is acceptable that they are used for the human’s own benefit, it does not prevent us from recognizing that they are living beings, endowed with own value, and therefore subject to some rights. | Case | |
| MN - Fish & Game - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. Penalties | M. S. A. § 97A.301 - 345 | MN ST § 97A.301 - 345 | These Minnesota statutes pertain to criminal sanctions for violations of fish and game laws. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if s/he takes, buys, sells, transports or possesses a wild animal in violation of the laws. A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if s/he knowingly disregards no trespassing signs or trespasses after being notified not to trespass. It is also a gross misdemeanor to violate provisions relating to buying or selling fur-bearers, deer, bear, moose, elk, or caribou, fishing with illegal methods, and transporting animals over the limit. A gross misdemeanor may be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment. | Statute |
| Department of Local Government and Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd | Western Australia Magistrates Court, 8 February 2008, Magistrate C.P. Crawford |
The central allegation was that the defendants transported the sheep in a way likely to cause unnecessary harm. Magistrate Crawford found that the sheep, some of which died from inanition, suffered distress and harm and that this harm was unnecessary. Proof of actual harm, however, was unnecessary as it only had to be shown that it was likely that the sheep would suffer harm. This required evidence pointing only to the conditions onboard the ship, and voyage plan, as at the first day. The defences of necessity and honest and reasonable belief were both dismissed. |
Case | |
| Johnson v. McMahan | 68 Cal.App.4th 173 (1998) | 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 173 (1998) |
After a repairman was injured by a dog that grabbed his leg through his jeans and made him fall from a ladder, the victim sued the owners under the dog bite statute, Civ. Code, § 3342. The court held that the statute applied, even though the plaintiff was not wounded by the bite. The word “bite” did not require a puncture or tearing away of the skin. |
Case |
| Rogers v. State | 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988). |
Dog fighting case. Where the dog fighting area was in an open section of woods near the defendant's home, police officers were not required to obtain a search warrant before entering the defendant's property because of the "open fields" doctrine. |
Case | |
| Armstrong v. Riggi | 549 P.2d 753 (Nev. 1976) | 92 Nev. 280 (1976) |
Joe Riggi delivered his two unregistered Pomeranian dogs to the Armstrongs' Poodle Parlor to be bathed and groomed. The dogs died while in the care of the bailee. Riggi commenced this action to recover damages alleging that the dogs were worth more than $10,000. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court incorrectly interpreted the state court rule regarding attorney fees. Since the appellate court did in fact determine error, the case was remanded. |
Case |
| NJ - Horse Slaughter - 4:22-25.5. Prohibition upon slaughter of horses for human consumption; punishment | N. J. S. A. 4:22-25.5 | NJ ST 4:22-25.5 | This New Jersey law enacted in 2012 makes it a disorderly persons offense to knowingly slaughter a horse for human consumption. Additionally, it makes the knowing sale or barter of horseflesh for human consumption a disorderly persons offense. Violation incurs a fine of not less than $100 and a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 days. | Statute |
| Legal Personhood: Animals, Artificial Intelligence and the Unborn |
|
Policy |
