Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DILLON v. O'CONNOR | 412 P.2d 126 (Wash. 1966) | 68 Wash.2d 184 (1966) |
As the court stated, "This is ‘The Case of the Costly Canine.' ‘Bimbo,’ an acknowledged ‘tree hound' but without pedigree or registration papers, lost a bout with defendant's automobile. For ‘Bimbo's' untimely demise, his owner, plaintiff, brought suit against defendant alleging that ‘Bimbo’ was killed as a result of defendant's negligent operation of his automobile." Ultimately, the court used a market value approach in determining damages. However, based on subsequent caselaw, it should be noted that Washington uses the market value approach only for negligent injury, and not intentional injury. |
Case |
| Baugh v. Beatty | 205 P.2d 671 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) | 91 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) |
This California case is a personal injury action by Dennis Ray Baugh, a minor, by John R. Baugh, his guardian ad litem, against Clyde Beatty and others, resulting from injuries suffered by the 4-year old child after he was bitten by a chimpanzee in a circus animal tent. The court found that the instructions given were prejudicial where the jurors were told that the patron could not recover if the patron's conduct caused injury or if the conduct of the father in charge of patron caused injury; instead, the sole question for jury should have been whether patron knowingly and voluntarily invited injury because the animal was of the class of animals ferae naturae, of known savage and vicious nature. |
Case |
| UK - Research Animals - Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 | 1986 CHAPTER 14 | An Act to regulate the use of live vertebrate animals in research. Before a test on animals is given permission to proceed various licenses are required. These include: a personal license for each person carrying out the procedure, a project license for the programme of work, and an establishment license for the place in which the work is carried out. Each project must undergo a harm/ benefit analysis. This considers the potential benefits for humankind, the environment or other animals, against the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm which the experimental animals may experience. Licence holders who lawfully use animals under the Act are exempted from the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Section 24 of the Act makes it an offence to disclose any information relating to a regulated animal experiment which has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, given in confidence. | Statute | |
| IL - Police dog - Act 82. Police Dog Retirement Act | 510 I.L.C.S. 82/1 - 5 | IL ST CH 510 § 82/1 - 5 | The Police Dog Retirement Act, effective on January 1, 2017, states that a public service dog that is no longer fit for service shall be offered by the law enforcement agency to the officer or employee who had custody and control of the animal during its service. This includes a search and rescue dog, service dog, accelerant detection canine, or other dog that is in use by a county, municipal, or State law enforcement agency. If the officer or employee does not wish to keep the dog, the dog may be offered to another officer or employee in the agency, or to a non-profit organization or a no-kill animal shelter. | Statute |
| ND - Hunting - Chapter 20.1-01. General Provisions. | NDCC 20.1-01-31 | ND ST 20.1-01-31 | This law reflects North Dakota's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person may intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife on public or private land by another or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife on public or private land for the purpose of disrupting a lawful hunt. Also, no person may remove with or tamper with a legally set trap. This section does not apply to any incidental interference arising from lawful activity by public or private land users or to landowners or operators interfering with hunters on land owned or operated by that individual. | Statute |
| KS - Abandon - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-835 | KS ST § 47-835 | This Kansas statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian that is unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten (10) days after written notice by registered or certified mail is given, shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society, or dog pound or disposed of as the custodian may deem proper. The giving of notice to the owner of record immunizes the veterinarian from liability. | Statute |
| HI - Lien - § 507-1. Animals, lien for care of | HRS § 507-1, 507-2, 507-3 | HI ST § 507-1, 507-2, 507-3 | Whoever pastures, feeds, or shelters animals by virtue of a contract with or by the consent of the owner of the animals for a compensation agreed upon, has a lien on the animals for pasturing, feeding, or sheltering to secure payment thereof with costs. | Statute |
| What to Expect When Adopting a Dog |
What to Expect When Adopting a Dog, Diane Rose-Solomon, SOP3 Publishing (2016).
|
Policy | ||
| MI - Research - Chapter 333. Health. Public Health Code. | M.C.L.A. 333.2671 - 2678 | MI ST 333.2671 - 2678 | This set of Michigan laws proclaims that "[t]he public health and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases." It also creates an animal research advisory board which may regulate and establish standards pursuant to section 2678 controlling the humane use of animals. Further, the department, its representative, or a member of the animal research advisory board may inspect any premises or property on or in which animals are kept for experimental purposes for the purpose of investigation of compliance with board standards. A person shall not keep or use animals for experimental purposes unless registered to do so by the department. | Statute |
| GA - Bite - § 51-2-6. Dogs, liability of owner or keeper for injuries to livestock | Ga. Code Ann., § 51-2-6 to 7 | GA ST § 51-2-6 to 7 | This Georgia statute represents the state's relevant dog bite strict liability law. While the law imposes strict liability for injury to a person, the dog (or other animal) must first be considered "vicious" or "dangerous," which can be as simple as showing the animal was required to be leashed per city ordinance. Second, the animal must be at large by the careless management of the owner. Finally, the person injured must not have provoked the animal into attacking him or her. | Statute |
