Louisiana

Displaying 51 - 60 of 76
Titlesort ascending Summary
LA - Cruelty - § 107.1. Ritualistic acts This Louisiana law states that it is necessary for "the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, morals, safety, and welfare and for the support of state government and its existing public institutions" to ban certain ritualistic acts. With regard to animals, the law defines a "ritualistic act" to include the mutilation, dismemberment, torture, abuse, or sacrifice of animals or the ingestion of animal blood or animal waste. Any person committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring with another to commit a ritualistic act may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
LA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes These Louisiana statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. The term "cruel" is defined in the first section every act or failure to act whereby unjustifiable physical pain or suffering is caused or permitted. The crime of cruelty to animals is subdivided into simple cruelty or aggravated cruelty. Simple cruelty occurs when a person intentionally or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, or overworks, torments, cruelly beats, or unjustifiably injures, or, having charge, custody, or possession of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, unjustifiably fails to provide any living animal with proper food, proper drink, proper shelter, or proper veterinary care.
LA - Cruelty - Chapter 17. Cruelty to Animals (Corporations for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) These chapters concerns the powers and duties of Louisiana corporations for prevention of cruelty to animals.
LA - Captive Wildlife - §115. Possession of Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadrupeds and Non-Human Primates


This Louisiana regulation states that the possession of certain potentially dangerous quadrupeds, big exotic cats, and non-human primates poses significant hazards to public safety and health, is detrimental to the welfare of the animals, and may have negative impacts on conservation and recovery of some threatened and endangered species. As a result, except as provided, it is unlawful to import into, possess, purchase or sell within the state of Louisiana, by any means whatsoever including but not limited to transactions conducted via the internet, any of the following species: cougar or mountain lion (Felis concolor); black bear (Ursus americanus); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); polar bear (Ursus maritimus); red wolf (Canis rufus); gray wolf (Canis lupus); wolf dog hybrid (Canis lupus or Canis rufus x Canis familiarus); all non-human primates. While the prohibition against wolf-dog hybrids expired January 1, 1997, the regulation cautions persons that local ordinances or other state regulations may prohibit possession of these animals.

LA - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws The following comprise Louisiana's assistance animal/guide dog laws.
Honeycutt v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.


A driver hit a cow standing in the road and the driver brought suit against the cow's owner and the owner's insurance agency.  The trial court held in favor of the driver and the Court of Appeals affirmed based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

Hebert v. Broussard


A dog that chased and pinned a man was shot by a police officer who had been called for assistance.  The dog owner instituted an action against the police officer, the police chief and the city.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the police officer, police chief and city, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the police officer was entitled to statutory immunity.

Hairston v. Burger King Corp.


Louisiana appeals court affirmed trial court's finding that plaintiff failed to adequately link her stomach ailment with a burger purchased from Burger King and thus could not sustain an action that sought recovery of alleged damages suffering due to food poisoning.

Gonzales v. Kissner


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.

Florice v. Brown


In this Louisiana case, an inexperienced rider was thrown from a horse and sued the horse's owner for negligence and strict liability. After the lower court dismissed the claim, the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, this court held that the horse did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the rider such as to warrant imposing strict liability on the owner. The court noted that not every risk of injury posed by an animal represents an unreasonable risk. Here, the evidence established that the horse had a gentle disposition and the movement that caused the plaintiff to be thrown was not unusual or aggressive behavior but rather was simply "horse-like behavior."

Pages