|
Boyer v. Seal |
In this case, plaintiff filed suit against her daughter under Civil Code article 2321 after her daughter’s cat accidentally tripped plaintiff causing injury to her wrist and back that required medication and hospitalization. Under Civil Code article 2321, plaintiff must show that the domestic animal created an “unreasonable risk of harm” and that any damage that occurred was a direct result of that harm. Additionally, the plaintiff does not need to show that the animal was acting aggressively or was inherently dangerous to collect damages under the code. The court held that plaintiff did not meet this burden of showing an “unreasonable risk of harm” because the cat “getting underfoot and accidentally tripping the plaintiff was not an unreasonable risk.” |
|
Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) |
On grant of appeal from
Branks v. Kern
, 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. 1986). Cat owner brought negligence action against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after her hand was bitten while she held her own cat during a catheterization procedure. In reversing the Court of Appeals decision (348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C. App. 1986)), the Supreme Court held that defendants in the instant case have met their burden of showing that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law where the evidence showed that the danger was obvious to plaintiff and defendants only owed plaintiff a duty to exercise ordinary care.
|
|
Brief Summary of Feral Cat and Wild Bird Controversy |
This summary briefly covers the factors contributing to the feral cat crisis. It also outlines the factors that may result in population increases of free-roaming cats. The summary then concludes by exploring the shift in focus, which now views them as "community cats," and how this enhanced caretaking has led to unintended predation on bird populations and competition with other native mammals. |
|
Brief Summary of Feral Cat Legal Issues |
This overview discusses state laws that impact feral cats. The article analyzes the concept of "ownership" as it concerns feral cats, and outlines some of the legal considerations for feral cat caretakers.
|
|
Brief Summary of Feral Cat Population Control |
This is a brief overview of feral cat population issues. Opposing viewpoints on cat control are presented. Issues of legal liability for cat predation are explored.
|
|
Brief Summary of State Cat Laws |
Most state cat laws deal with anti-cruelty and health concerns, such as requiring rabies vaccinations. A majority of states address over-population by requiring shelters to sterilize animals they adopt out, but otherwise consider free-roaming and feral cats to be a local issue. Local governments deal with the problems associated with these cats, such as nuisance, trespass, property damage, and destruction of native wildlife.
|
|
Britton v. Bruin |
In this case, plaintiff appealed a decision by the district court denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiff petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to stop the City of Albuquerque's effort to control a large population of feral cats in its metropolitan area by “trapping, neutering them, and then returning them” to the location at which they were found. The district court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because the court held that there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Also, the court held that because the city’s program did not result in any unconstitutional action, the writ of mandamus was not appropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling, looking only at whether or not there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” The court did not address the issue of whether or not the city’s population control effort was appropriate and should continue. The district court's order denying Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is affirmed.
|
|
CA - Cats - Consolidated Cat Laws |
These statutes comprise California consolidated cat laws. Among the provisions include possession requirements for non-domestic cats, vaccination and impound procedures for domestic cats, and legislative policy statements about feral cats. |
|
CA - Cruelty - § 597.6. Exotic or native wild cat species; alteration of toes, claws or paws |
This California law provides that no person may perform, or otherwise procure or arrange for the performance of, surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on any cat that is a member of an exotic or native wild cat species, and shall not otherwise alter such a cat's toes, claws, or paws to prevent the normal function of the cat's toes, claws, or paws. Violation results in a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of up to $10,000. |
|
CA - West Hollywood - Chapter 9.48 Animal Control Regulations. |
This comprises the City of West Hollywood, California's animal control ordinances. The animal control ordinances of Los Angeles County have been adopted by reference, prohibiting animal nuisances as well as the keeping of dangerous animals. The code also defines and outlines procedures for feral cats. Uniquely, West Hollywood has a ban on onychectomy (“declawing") of domestic cats unless done as a medically necessary procedure, as well as a ban on the sale of fur (with some exceptions). Further, subject to some exemptions, the city prohibits the retail sale of cats and dogs.
|
