|
WV - Exotic Pets - Article 34. Dangerous Wild Animals Act |
The State of West Virginia found the possession of dangerous wild animals to present a serious public health and safety concern. Because of this, the state prohibits a person from possessing a dangerous wild animal unless the animal was owned prior to June 1, 2015 and the owner obtained a permit. Under this statute, a “Dangerous wild animal” means a mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or aquatic animal, including a hybrid that is dangerous to humans, other animals or the environment due to its inherent nature and capability to do significant harm. |
|
Wrinkle v. Norman |
Wrinkle filed a negligence action against his neighbors (the Normans) after he sustained injuries on thier property. The injuries stemmed from an incident where Wrinkle was trying to herd cattle he thought belonged to the Normans back into a pen on the Normans' property. The lower court granted the Normans' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, this court found that the question comes down to Wrinkle's status (invitee, licensee, or trespasser) to determine the duty owed by the Normans. This Court found that the district court properly determined that Wrinkle was a trespasser. Finally, the court addressed the K.S.A. 47-123 claim as to whether the Normans are liable for their cattle running at large. The court found that Wrinkle could not meet the burden under the statute.
|
|
William v. Orange County Animal Control |
This involves a case where owners challenge validity of euthanasia order for "dangerous" dog. "Boo," a bullmastiff (large breed of dog), knocked down a child who had walked into his (the dog's) yard. The child accused dog of biting him. The Orange County Animal Control Department ordered that Boo be euthanized as a "vicious" and "dangerous" animal. The owners filed a Writ of Mandamus to delay the killing of the dog until their challenge could be heard in court.
|
|
Wilhelm v. Flores |
In this Texas case, a deceased worker's estate and his four adult children brought a negligence action against the beekeeper and others, after the worker died from anaphylactic shock caused by bee stings. On petition for review, the Supreme Court held that beekeeper did not owe worker, a commercial buyer's employee, any duty to warn him of dangers associated with bee stings or to protect worker from being stung.
|
|
WI - Somerset - Breed - Sec. 7-1-9. Wild, exotic and dangerous animals; pit bull dogs. |
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Somerset Wisconsin, with exceptions for dogs registered prior to the effective date of the pit bull ban. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement or the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance. Puppies born to such dogs must be removed from the city after 6 weeks.
|
|
WI - Juneau - Breed - 6.04.090 Pit bulls and other dangerous animals. |
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Juneau, Wisconsin, with an exception for pit bulls registered on the day the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of $50,000 liability insurance for personal injury caused by a pit bull.
|
|
WI - Hewitt - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance |
In Hewitt, Wisconsin, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pitbull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered by the date the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept subject to certain conditions, such as keeping the dog properly confined, using a leash and muzzle, posting "Beware of Dog" signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance.
|
|
Watzig v. Tobin |
This is an appeal of a district court decision on property damages from plaintiff's car hitting defendant's cow. On appeal, the Court determined that the animal owners did not violate a closed range statute merely because their cow was on a public highway, that the presence of an animal on a public highway does not establish that the animal owners were negligent, and that the driver of an automobile has a duty to maintain a reasonable outlook for animals on public highways.
|
|
WA - Wildlife - 77.15.790. Negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building--I |
These two Washington laws deal with the unauthorized feeding of large wild carnivores. A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building. If a person who is issued a written warning fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or other substance as directed, the person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. |
|
WA - Trespass - CHAPTER 16.04. TRESPASS OF ANIMALS-GENERAL |
These Washington statutes pertain to trespassing livestock animals. They provide for liability of owners for damage caused by such animals.There are also notification requirements to owners of trespassing animals. |
