Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harris v. Barefoot | 704 S.E.2d 282 (N.C. App. 2010) | 2010 WL 3001399 (N.C.App.) , 206 N.C.App. 308 (2010) |
A mail carrier was attacked by two dogs, and sued the dogs’ owners for negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that a dog owner is not liable unless there is evidence that the dog had a vicious propensity and that the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous. |
Case | |
| MN - Dogs, license - 347.14. Unlicensed dogs | M. S. A. § 347.14 | MN ST § 347.14 | This Minnesota statute, amended in 2006, provides that any person may seize, impound, or restrain any unlicensed dog which the person may find running at large. The fact that a dog is without a license attached to a collar shall be presumptive evidence that the dog is unlicensed. An officer is under a duty to seize and impound such animal. | Statute | |
| HI - Dog Bite - CHAPTER 663. TORT ACTIONS. | H R S § 663-9 - § 663-9.1 | HI ST § 663-9 - § 663-9.1 | This statute represents Hawaii's relevant dog bite law. Under the statute, an owner or harborer of an animal is strictly liable for personal or property damage to any person, regardless of the animal owner's or harborer's lack of scienter of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal. | Statute | |
| Coe v. Lewsader | 64 N.E.3d 817, appeal denied, 77 N.E.3d 81 (Ill. 2017) | 2016 IL App (4th) 150841, 2016 WL 5679604 | In this case, Ryan and Hillary Coe filed suit against Eric and Trish Lewsader for damages resulting from an accident involving the Lewsader’s dog. Ryan Coe was driving his motorcycle while intoxicated on a public highway when he hit the Lewsader’s dog that was lying in the middle of the street. Coe suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and filed suit against the Lewsader’s according to Section 16 of the Illinois Animal Attacks or Injuries statute. According to the Act, “if a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages.” In order to be awarded damages under the Act, the Coe’s needed to establish “some overt act” of the Lewsader’s dog . As a result, the question before the court was whether or not the Lewsader’s dog was acting overtly when it was lying in the middle of the street at the time of the accident. Ultimately, the court held that the dog was not acting overtly by lying in the middle of the street. Also, the court rejected the Coe’s argument that the dog had acted overtly when it walked into the street before lying down. The court rejected this argument because the overt act needed to take place at the time of the injury, not before. As a result, the court found that the Lewsader’s were not liable for civil damages under the Act because the dog had not acted overtly at the time of accident and therefore the Act did not apply in this situation. | Case | |
| Brazil - Animal Cruelty - Decreto-lei nº 24645, |
Art. 1º - Todos os animais existentes no País sno tutelados do Estado. |
Administrative | |||
| Wrinkle v. Norman | 242 P.3d 1216 (Kan. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 4539371 (Kan.App.,2010), 44 Kan.App.2d 950 (2010) |
Wrinkle filed a negligence action against his neighbors (the Normans) after he sustained injuries on thier property. The injuries stemmed from an incident where Wrinkle was trying to herd cattle he thought belonged to the Normans back into a pen on the Normans' property. The lower court granted the Normans' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, this court found that the question comes down to Wrinkle's status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser) to determine the duty owed by the Normans. This Court found that the district court properly determined that Wrinkle was a trespasser. Finally, the court addressed the K.S.A. 47-123 claim as to whether the Normans are liable for their cattle running at large. The court found that Wrinkle could not meet the burden under the statute. |
Case | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement | 2005 WL 41294 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 05-525 |
NMFS will be preparing an EIS to analyze the potential impacts of applying new criteria in guidelines to determine what constitutes a ``take'' of a marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of exposure to anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. This notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and also describes the proposed scoping process. |
Administrative | |
| MA - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 128. Agriculture. | M.G.L.A. 128 § 2D | MA ST 128 § 2D | This Massachusetts law provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. The statute sets out several definitions related to equine activities, but specifically notes that the term "engage in an equine activity" shall not include being a spectator at an equine activity, except in cases where the spectator places himself in an unauthorized area or in immediate proximity to the equine activity. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute | |
| Night monkey used in malaria research perched on top of a corrugated pipe nest soiled with feces. | Slideshow Images | ||||
| US - Horse - Wild Horses and Burros Act | 16 USC 1331 - 1340 | The Wild Horses and Burros Act approved December 15, 1971, provides for protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros. It directs the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior and Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture to manage such animals on public lands under their jurisdiction. | Statute |