|
WI - Breeder - Chapter ATCP 16. Dog Sellers and Dog Facility Operators. |
This set of administrative regulations from Wisconsin covers the conditions under which dogs must be kept by dog breeders (defined as any person who sells at least 25 dogs from more than 3 litters) and dog dealers. Dog sellers and dog facility operators are required to be licensed under the section. Per ATCP 16.18, a person licensed under this chapter may not transfer a dog to the buyer unless the dog is at least 7 weeks old, the dog is accompanied by its dam, or the department approves the transfer in writing. Minimum standards of care are outlined for licensees for dogs kept indoors or outdoors. |
|
WI - Breed - 95.13. Misrepresenting breed of domestic animal |
Under this Wisconsin statute, no person may sell any domestic animal or represent that such domestic animal is a pure bred animal, if the animal is not registered or entitled to be registered, in any pure breed registry for that breed. |
|
WI - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. |
|
State v. Kuenzi |
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.
|
|
Smith v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co. |
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. |
|
Rosche v. Wayne Feed Div. Continental Grain Co. |
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.
|
|
Rabideau v. City of Racine |
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.
|
|
Kangas v. Perry |
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.
|
|
Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company |
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.
|
|
Dog Federation of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee |
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.
|
