Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trager v. Thor | 516 N.W.2d 69 (Mich.,1994) | 445 Mich. 95 (Mich.,1994) |
In this Michigan case involving an action for damages after personal injury, the father of the dog’s owner was visiting his son's home when he agreed to supervise the dog while his son and daughter-in-law went shopping. The n eighbor’s child was subsequently bitten by the dog, which had been put by defendant into a bedroom. This court held that the defendant, as a temporary caretaker of the dog, could not be held to the strict liability standard of an owner keeper, but could be liable under theory of negligence. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the father was negligent in fulfilling his duty of care in supervising the dog, which precluded summary judgment in a negligence action. |
Case | |
| Carter v. Metro North Assocs. | 680 N.Y.S.2d 239, 240 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) | 255 A.D.2d 251 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) | In this case, a tenant sued her landlord for injuries sustained when the tenant was bitten on the face by a pit bull owned by another tenant. The court held that before a pet owner, or the landlord of the building in which the pet lives, may be held strictly liable for an injury inflicted by the animal, the plaintiff must establish both (1) that the animal had vicious propensities and (2) that the defendant knew or should have known of the animal's propensities. In this case, there was no evidence that the pit bull had vicious propensities, nor did any of the evidence support a finding that the landlord had, or should have had, knowledge of any such propensities. The appellate court found the lower court erred when it took "judicial notice of the vicious nature of the breed as a whole." The court noted that there are alternate opinions and evidence that preclude taking judicial notice that pit bulls are inherently vicious as a breed. The trial court order was reversed, judgment for plaintiff vacated, and complaint dismissed. | Case | |
| PA - Permits - Chapter 133. Wildlife Classification. | 58 PA ADC § 133.1 - .6; 58 PA ADC § 133.21; 58 PA ADC § 133.41 | 58 Pa. Code § 133.1 to .6; 58 Pa. Code § 133.21; 58 Pa. Code § 133.41 | This set of Pennsylvania regulations defines terms used such as protected mammals, protected birds, endangered species, threatened species, and furbearers. | Administrative | |
| MI - Exotic Pets - Chapter 287. Animal Industry; Large Carnivore Act | M. C. L. A. 287.1101 - 1123 | MI ST 287.1101 - 1123 | This Michigan law bans acquisition and possession of large carnivores (big cats and bears), though it grandfathered animals already owned as pets at the time of the law's enactment. In order to maintain public safety and animal welfare, the state created a strict permit system for those owners who were allowed to keep their already-existing pets. The statute also outlines minimal care requirements, transportation guidelines, and procedures for when a large carnivore suspected of carrying rabies bites a human or livestock. | Statute | |
| FL - Ecoterrorism - Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act | West's F. S. A. § 828.40 - 43 | FL ST § 828.40 - 43 | This set of laws comprises the Florida Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Under the Act, a person who intentionally causes physical disruption to the property, personnel, or operations of an animal enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any property, including animals or records, used by the animal enterprise, and thereby causes economic damage, commits a felony of the third degree. | Statute | |
| Demeo v. Manville | 68 Ill.App.3d 843 (1979) | 386 N.E.2d 917 (Ill.App. 2 Dist., 1979) |
This is an Illinois' small claims action involving the death of plaintiffs' show dog. Plaintiff alleged that defendant ran over the dog while it was tied up near the driveway. Defendant denied plaintiff’s allegations that defendant ran over the dog and used a cover-up story. The court upheld an award of five-hundred dollars although the purchase price was two-hundred. Plaintiff testified that he paid $200 for his dog when it was a puppy, but it had appeared in four shows, winning first prize in each. Evidence was considered for commercial value and special qualities in that case. |
Case | |
| CA - Restaurant - § 114259.5. Live animals | West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 114259.5 | CA HLTH & S § 114259.5 | In 2014, California added amendments to its law on "Live Animals" in the Retail Food Code related to pet dogs in outdoor dining areas. If a food establishment owner allows it, patrons may bring their pet dogs to an outdoor dining area if requirements are met. Like other states, there must be an outdoor entrance, employees must wash hands if they touch the dogs, dogs must be leashed and under control, pet waste must be properly dealt with, and "food and water provided to pet dogs shall only be in single-use disposable containers." This last provision is interesting because it considers the needs of the canine customers. | Statute | |
| US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for Five Endangered Mussels in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins | 2004 WL 1924143 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AI76 |
The FWS has designated designate 13 river and stream segments in the Tennessee Cumberland River Basins, for a total of approximately 885 river as critical habitat for five endangered mussels: Cumberland elktoe ( Alasmidonta atropurpurea ), oyster mussel ( Epioblasma capsaeformis ), Cumberlandian combshell ( Epioblasma brevidens ), purple bean ( Villosa perpurpurea ), and rough rabbitsfoot ( Quadrula cylindrica strigillata ). All five mussels belong to the Unionidae family. |
Administrative | |
| IN - Veterinary - Article 38.1. Veterinarians. | I.C. 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 | IN ST 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| CO - Impound - Article 4. Disease Control | C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610 | CO ST § 25-4-610 | This Colorado statute provides that it is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal. | Statute |