Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Becker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. | 416 N.W.2d 906 (Wis.,1987) | 141 Wis.2d 804 (1987) |
Motorist sued dog owner after he was injured in a car accident allegedly caused by dog. The Court of Appeals held that the “injury by dog” statute creates strict liability for any injury or damage caused by dog if owner was negligent (with public policy exceptions). Here, the dog owner was not strictly liable because he was not negligent when his dog escaped from its enclosure. |
Case | |
| Cole v. Hubanks | 681 N.W.2d 147 (Wis. 2003) | 2004 WI 74 |
Police officer was injured by homeowner's dog and sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that public policy does not dictate extending the firefighter's rule to the police officer, and therefore, that the officer could sue for injuries received as a result of the bite. Reversed and remanded. |
Case | |
| Detailed Discussion of Wisconsin Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Wisconsin Great Ape law. Wisconsin does not have a specific law that prohibits the possession of apes or otherwise addresses their care. The state has a chapter on captive wildlife with a number of provisions related to the possession of captive live wild animals, which would generally include great apes.The state’s endangered species law also prohibits the taking, transport, and possession of endangered or threatened species, including federally-listed species. It is unclear based on a reading of the law whether it requires state permits for foreign endangered species. The law specifically exempts zoological societies or municipal zoos from its reach. Finally, apes are covered generally under the state’s anti-cruelty laws as warm-blooded, non-human animals. The law prohibits treating animals in a cruel manner, which includes causing unnecessary and excessive pain, suffering, or unjustifiable death. Additionally, all animals kept in captivity must have adequate food, water, and shelter. | Article | |
| Dog Federation of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee | 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis.App.,1993) |
This appeal is by the Dog Federation of Wisconsin and others who contest a City of South Milwaukee ordinance that imposes restrictions on the ownership and keeping of “pit bulls.” The Federation claims that the “pit bull” aspects of the ordinance are facially invalid because: the definition of “pit bull” is impermissibly vague; the ordinance is overbroad; and the ordinance violates their right to equal protection. The court found that reference to recognized breeds provides sufficient specifics to withstand a vagueness challenge. With regard to equal protection, the court held that the ordinance is founded on “substantial distinctions” between the breeds of dog covered by the ordinance and other breeds of dog. Moreover, the ordinance is “germane” to the underlying purpose of the ordinance to protect persons and animals from dangerous dogs. Finally, the ordinance applies equally to the affected class of persons owning or keeping pit bulls. |
Case | ||
| Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company | 80 N.W.2d 345 (Wis. 2004) | 2004 WL 1207668 (Wis.), 272 Wis.2d 46 |
Dog bite victim sued homeowners insurer. Held: courts may factor traditional public policy to bar a claim under the dog bite statute, and in this case, public policy precludes imposing liability on homeowners even though the dog bite statute appears to impose strict liability. |
Case | |
| Kangas v. Perry | 620 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 2000) |
Plaintiff, a passenger of a horse-drawn sled sued the owner of the property on which the accident occurred, as well as the owner of the horses and the sled for the injuries she suffered when thrown from the sled. The Court of Appeals found that the equine immunity statute provided protection for the owner of the horse against tort liability. The plain language of the statute provides that immunity from civil liability is available to all persons , “ including an equine activity sponsor or equine professional…”; thus, protection is not limited only to those who are sponsors or professionals, rather they are examples of types of people to whom the statute applies. |
Case | ||
| Rabideau v. City of Racine | 627 N.W.2d 795 (Wis. 2001) |
Pet owner could not recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress after a police officer shot her dog. While the court recognized the bond between owner and pet, public policy prevented such recovery. However, under the proper circumstances, a person could recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the loss of a pet. |
Case | ||
| Rosche v. Wayne Feed Div. Continental Grain Co. | 447 N.W.2d 94 (1989) | 152 Wis.2d 78 (1989) |
Pig breeder sought damages from feed manufacturer after pigs got sick, died, or became sterile after eating feed. The Court of Appeals held that jury should have been instructed that basic measure of damages for dead and injured livestock was based on market value of affected animals and did not include separate award for unborn litters. Failure to give proper instruction was prejudicial error that required a new trial on the issue of damages. |
Case | |
| Smith v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co. | 880 N.W.2d 183 (Wis. Ct. App., 2016) (unpublished) | 2016 WI App 41, ¶ 1, 369 Wis. 2d 224 (2016) | This case concerns the measure of damages for injury to companion animals in Wisconsin. It arises from the incident between the plaintiff’s 11-year-old dog and the neighbor's dog. Plaintiff’s dog sustained severe injuries that resulted in veterinary bills and related expenses for the amount of $12,235. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to recover all veterinary and related expenses. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that their damages were entitled to doubling under § 174.02(1)(b) as there were records that showed that the dog’s owner had knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Defendants’ insurer sought declaratory ruling arguing that under Wisconsin law, plaintiffs’ maximum recovery was the lesser amount between the dog's "cost of repair" and the dog's pre-injury fair market value, as it was the measure for personal property damage. The circuit court limited damages to $2,695, which was the amount conceded by the parties to be the replacement cost of plaintiff’s dog. In addition, that amount was doubled pursuant to § 174.02(1)(b). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and declined to extend Wisconsin's "keepsakes" rule to pets to provide different damages for pets that only have value to the owner. The court found there were “significant differences between an unrepairable and lost forever keepsake and an injured but "repairable" pet.” The court was also not persuaded by other states' precedent about allowing or denying veterinary treatment as part of damage awards and decided to continue to treat dogs the same as other personal property. On the additional expenses allegations, the court found them to be “expenses incurred by the Smiths to facilitate "repairing" their dog” that were subject to property damage limitations. | Case | |
| State v. Kuenzi | 796 N.W.2d 222 (WI. App,, 2011) | 2011 WL 659380 (WI. App.); 332 Wis.2d 297 (2011) |
Defendants Rory and Robby Kuenzi charged a herd of 30 to 40 deer with their snowmobiles, cruelly killing four by running them over, dragging them, and leaving one tied to a tree to die. The two men were charged with a Class I felony under Wisconsin § 951.02, which prohibits any person from “treat[ing] any animal ... in a cruel manner.” The Court concluded that the definition of “animal” included non-captive wild animals and rejected the defendants’ argument that they were engaged in “hunting.” The court reinstated the charges against the men.
|
Case |