Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Evans v. Craig | 807 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2006) | 25 A.D.3d 582, 807 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 00331 (2006) |
A postal worker brought an action against dog owners to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when dog jumped on her while she was delivering mail to the owners' home. In affirming the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that there factual issues as to whether the owners were aware of the potential danger from the dog and whether they took reasonable measures to prevent the dog from jumping on the plaintiff. |
Case | |
| Gonzales v. Kissner | 24 So.3d 214 ((La.App. 1 Cir.,2009) | 2009 WL 3029621 (La.App. 1 Cir.), 2008-2154 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09) |
This Louisiana case concerns an action for personal injuries sustained by an animal control officer who was mauled about the head and neck by defendants' dog while investigating a complaint of an attack by the dog from the previous day. The dog's owners argued on appeal that the trial court failed to apply the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine, sometimes referred to as the “fireman's rule." Because under the facts here, where the dog had previously escaped after being confined in the house and the defendants failed to properly lock the house and/or restrain the dog, the court did not find that Ms. Gonzales' recovery for injuries was barred by the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine. The court held that based upon the record before this court, there was no error on the part of the trial court that warranted reversal of the plaintiff's motion for a partial summary judgment as to the liability of the dog's owners. |
Case | |
| FL - Wildlife - Chapter 68A-1. General: Ownership, Short Title, Severability and Definitions | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68A-1.001 - 1.004 | 68 FL ADC 68A-1.001 to 1.004 | This chapter of the Administrative Code provides the definitions for the remaining chapters of the Code, and includes a declaration of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's authority to regulate all wild animal life within the state. | Administrative | |
| Night monkey in a soiled and rusty cage. | Slideshow Images | ||||
| Tuman v. VL GEM LLC | Slip Copy, 2017 WL 781486 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2017) |
In this case, Tuman sued the owners of her apartment complex, VL GEM LLC and GEM Management Partners LLC, after the apartment complex refused to allow her to keep an emotional support dog in her apartment to help her deal with her post-traumatic stress disorder. Truman argued that she was discriminated against after she requested a “reasonable accommodation” for her disability, in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The defendants argued that Truman failed to provide sufficient medical documentation of her need for the support dog and therefore were not liable for discrimination under the FHA. The court found that Truman was able to establish a disability under FHA by showing that her PTSD “causes her to have severe anxiety and difficulties with socialization.” The court held that this satisfied the requirement under the FHA that the disability must “substantially limit one or more major life activities.” Since Truman qualified as disabled under the FHA, the court turned to whether or not she had provided the apartment complex with sufficient documentation and notice. Ultimately, the court found that Truman had provided the apartment with sufficient documentation because she provided them with a note from her doctor stipulating that Truman needed an accommodation in order to cope with her disability. Lastly, the court found that the apartment complex knew of Truman’s disability and request for an accommodation and still refused to allow her to have a dog, which resulted in a violation under the FHA. As a result, the court found for Truman. |
Case | ||
| Lira v. Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue, Inc. | 488 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) | 2016 WL 1267745 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016) |
In this case, plaintiff’s family dog, a German Shepherd named Monte, ran away and was rescued by Greater Houston German Shepherd Dog Rescue (GHGSDR). The organization refused to return the dog to plaintiff, so plaintiff filed suit against GHGSDR. The court found that there is no common law that states that a dog owner loses property rights to its dog if it runs away and is found by someone else. The court also looked to whether or not there was a city ordinance that would determine the proper ownership of the dog. Ultimately, the court found that the city ordinance regarding stray dogs did not strip the plaintiff of ownership rights because the dog had run away. The court also held that if there were any doubts as to the meaning of the ordinance, it should always be read “against a forfeiture of property.” The Supreme Court of Texas reversed judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment reinstating the trial court's judgment that Monte belonged to the Liras and the court properly enjoined GHGSDR to return him to his owners. |
Case | |
| LA - Cruelty - Chapter 17. Cruelty to Animals (Corporations for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) | LSA-R.S. 3:2391 - 2501 | These chapters concerns the powers and duties of Louisiana corporations for prevention of cruelty to animals. | Statute | ||
| DE - Pet Sales - CHAPTER 40. PET WARRANTIES | 6 Del.C. § 4001 - 4011 | DE ST TI 6 § 4001 - 4011 | This Delaware statutory section comprises the state's "pet warranty" laws. Purchasers receive a statement of the dog's breed and any registration information when buying pets from a retail pet store under the law. Sellers are required to disclose any known disease or illness at the time of sale. Further, sellers must provide the following written statement when selling a registered pet: "A pedigree or a registration does not assure proper breeding condition, health, quality or claims to lineage." Buyers may receive a refund or replacement, or have veterinary expenses reimbursed by a seller where a dog becomes ill or dies within 20 days of purchase (or within two years for a congenital disorder). | Statute | |
| McBride v. Orr | 466 A.2d 952 (N.H., 1983) | 124 N.H. 66, 42 A.L.R.4th 835 (N.H. 1983) |
In this New Hampshire case, defendant animal control officer killed plaintiff’s dog believing that it was in pursuit of a deer. Defendant claimed immunity pursuant to a state statute. The Court reversed and remanded for a determination of damages for the plaintiff. The Court went on to state that the purpose of the statute was not to authorize defendant’s killing of plaintiff’s dog when the dog was no longer pursuing the deer. |
Case |