Pet Damages: Related Statutes
|Statute by category||Citation||Summary|
|IL - Service Animal - Chapter 740. Civil Liabilities.||740 I.L.C.S. 13/1 - 10||
Under this Illinois statute, a physically impaired person may bring an action for both economic and noneconomic damages against a person who steals, injures, or attacks his or her assistance animal with hazardous chemicals (provided he or she reasonably knew the guide dog was present and the chemical was hazardous). The economic damages recoverable include veterinary medical expenses, replacement costs, and temporary replacement assistance (provided by person or animal). No cause of action lies where the physically impaired person was committing a civil or criminal trespass at the time of the attack or theft.
|DE - Property - § 910. Dogs deemed personal property; theft; penalty.||9 Del.C. § 910||
Dogs are considered personal property in Delaware.
|CA - Damages - Injuries to animals; exemplary damages||CA CIVIL § 3340||
Exemplary damages may be given for injuries to animals committed in disregard of humanity either willfully or through gross negligence.
|CA - Theft - § 487e. Grand theft; dog exceeding value of $950||CA PENAL § 487e, 487f, 487g||
These provisions of the California Penal Code deal with stealing dogs and other animals. A person who feloniously steals, takes, or carries away a dog of another where the dog's value exceeds $950 is guilty of grand theft. If the value of the dog is less than $950, it is petty theft. If a person steals or maliciously takes an animal of another for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use (or does so by fraud or false representation), he or she commits a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 1 year or in the state prison.
|Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 329: Section 6268||Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6268 (1918)||
Section 6268 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the unlawful injury to certain property of another. Specifically, the statute states the punishment for hurting, maiming, poisoning anther's cattle, ox, horse, and mule.
|IN - Property - (Repealed by P.L.162-2006, SEC.49.) - Dogs as Personal Property for Taxation||I.C. 15-5-10-1 (Repealed by P.L.162-2006, SEC.49.)||
Dogs are considered personal property in Indiana (repealed).
|ID - Dog, property - Chapter 28. Dogs.||I.C. § 25-2807||
This Idaho statute states that dogs are considered property. It further provides that no entity of state or local government may by ordinance or regulation prevent the owner of any dog from protecting it from loss by the use of an electronic locating collar.
|MI - Statute of Limitations -Chapter 58. Limitation of Actions||M.C.L.A. 600.5805||
This Michigan statute outlines the statute of limitations for injuries to persons or property. Under the statute, actions for malpractice have a two-year statute of limitation.
|NY - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws||McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 106 - 127, 331 - 332, 400 - 410; McKinney's ECL §§ 11-0529, 11-0901 - 0928, 11-2117; McKinney's General Business Law §§ 399-aa, 751 - 755; McKinney's General Municipal Law § 88, 209-cc;||
These New York statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include state licensing requirements, the sale of dogs by pet dealers, rabies control laws, and provisions related to dogs and hunting.
|NY - Property - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws.||McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 366||
This New York statute provides that it is a crime to steal dogs, defined as: removing the collar, identification tag or any other identification by which the owner may be ascertained from any dog, cat or any other domestic animal; seizing or molesting any dog, while it is being held or led by any person or while it is properly muzzled or wearing a collar with an identification tag attached, except where such action is incidental to the enforcement of some law or regulation; or transporting any dog, not lawfully in his possession, for the purpose of killing or selling such dog.
|NY - Service Animal - Chapter 24-A. Of the Consolidated Laws.||McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107||
Under this New York statute, a disabled person whose guide, hearing or service dog is injured due to the negligence of the owner of another dog in handling that other dog may recover damages from the owner or custodian of the non-guide guide dog. These damages include veterinarian fees, replacement or retraining costs for the guide dog, lost wages, or damages for loss of mobility during retraining or replacement of the dog.
|MD - Pet Injuries, Damages - § 11-110. Damages for injuries or death caused to pets||MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 11-110||
This Maryland statute provides that the measure of damages for tortious injury or death to a pet is the market value of the pet before the injury, or the cost of veterinary care that does not exceed $7,500.
|NV - Property - Chapter 193. General Provisions.||N. R. S. 193.021||
Dogs, domestic animals and birds are considered personal property in Nevada.
|NC - Malpractice - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations.||N.C.G.S.A. § 90-21.12||
This North Carolina statute provides the standard of health care in actions for damages for personal injury or death arising out of medical-based malpractice. Under the statute, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider’s actions fell below the standards of practice of other health care professionals similarly trained and situated in the same or similar communities.
|NV - Damages, pet - 41.740. Damages for which person who kills or injures pet of another person is liable; punitive and noneconomic damages may not be awarded; limitation on amount of damages; exceptions||N.R.S. 41.740||This Nevada law provides that if a "natural person" intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently injures or kills the pet of another natural person, the person is liable for (a) the cost of veterinary care incurred because of the injury or death of the pet; (b) any reduction in market value of the pet caused by the injury; (c) the market value and reasonable burial expenses if the pet is killed; and (d) reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing an action under this section. All the damages must not exceed $5,000 per pet. There are several exceptions under the law. A pet is defined as any domesticated dog or cat normally maintained in or near the household of its owner.|
|NM - Property - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock.||NMSA 1978, § 77-1-1||
Dogs, cats and domestic birds are considered personal property in New Mexico.
|OR - Animal Definitions - Chapter 87. Statutory Liens. Liens Generally. 87.142. Definitions||O. R. S. § 87.142||
This is Oregon's statutory definitions for Animal Statutes.
|OR - Property - 609.020. Dogs declared personal property||O.R.S. § 609.020||
Dogs are considered personal property in Oregon.
|OK - Property - § 1717. Dog as personal property||OK ST T. 21 § 1717||
Dogs are considered personal property in Oklahoma.
|TN - Expert - § 29-26-115. Burden of proof; expert witnesses||T. C. A. § 29-26-115||
This Tennessee statute provides the requirements for the claimant’s burden of proof under malpractice actions, including, inter alia , the proof that the defendant’s actions fell below the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the community, proximate cause, and proof by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s actions were negligent.
|TN - Pet Damages - § 44-17-403. Liability for death of pet; damages; exemptions||T. C. A. § 44-17-403||
This Tennessee statute provides that a pet owner may seek non-economic damages up to $5,000 for the death of his or her pet against the person who is liable for causing the death or injuries that led to the animal's death. The person causing the pet's death must have done so intentionally or, if negligently, the incident must have occurred either on the owner or pet caretaker's property or while in the control and supervision of the caretaker. These damages are not for the intentional infliction of emotional distress of the owner or other civil claim, but rather for the direct loss of "reasonably expected society, companionship, love and affection of the pet."
|VA - Property - § 3.2-6585. Dogs and cats deemed personal property; rights relating thereto||Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6585||This Virginia statute provides that all dogs and cats shall be deemed personal property and may be the subject of larceny and malicious or unlawful trespass. It further grants authority to animal control officers to seize a stolen dog or cat pending court action.|
|WI - Dog Bite - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.12. Actions against owners||W. S. A. 174.12||
This Wisconsin statute outlines the allowance procedure by counties for damage done by dogs after a claim is filed and the county sues to recover from the owner of the damaging dog. The claimant shall first be notified that such action is contemplated and shall have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to offer further evidence in support of the claimant's claim. It also provides that this chapter shall not in any way limit the existing right or authority of any town, village or city to pass ordinances for the keeping and regulating of dogs, or repeal or annul any existing statute or ordinance or local regulation governing the keeping and regulating of dogs.
|WI - Cats - Question 62 - DEFEATED||Wisconsin 2005 Question 62||
This controversial measure would have allowed hunters to hunt any cat that was found free roaming, meaning it did not exhibit a collar or other signs of domestic ownership. At the Monday, April 11, 2005 meeting of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, those in favor of the feral cat hunting proposal approved the measure by a vote of 6,830 to 5,201. This approval was then forwarded to the state Natural Resources Board for consideration. Proponents of the measure suggest feral cats expose domestic animals to disease and endanger native songbirds. Opponents of the measure counter that such a law would be cruel and archaic, putting domestic cats who have escaped from their homes at risk of death. On May 25, 2005 at the Natural Resources Board regular spring meeting, a representative of the Congress indicated that the Executive Committee has declined to pursue the issue any further. (See the official meeting minutes at page 5 at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/minutes/M05/0505%20minutes.pdf ). Feral cat advocates claimed a public relations victory, as the measure gained national and even international criticism. (See Alley Cat Allies at http://www.alleycat.org/wi.html ). (For more on the procedural history of this measure, see the "Long Summary" under the "Statute Details" above).