|
NM - Dangerous Animal - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. |
This New Mexico statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to keep any animal known to be vicious and liable to attack or injure human beings unless such animal is securely kept to prevent injury to any person. It is also unlawful to keep any unvaccinated dog or cat or any animal with any symptom of rabies or to fail or to refuse to destroy vicious animals or unvaccinated dogs or cats with symptoms of rabies. |
|
Nichols v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. |
A customer brought an action against Lowe's home improvement store to recover for injury sustained when a "wild bird" flew into the back of her head while she was shopping in the gardening area. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in making the premises safe and that the defendant did not warn customers that the birds were a dangerous condition on the premises. In granting the owner's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the store owner did not owe customer a duty under Illinois law to protect her from wild bird attack since attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Further, the store owner was not the "owner" or "keeper" of a "wild bird" within meaning of Illinois Animal Control Act.
|
|
Newsome v. Erwin |
Plaintiff brought § 1983 action against county sheriff and others alleging that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they shot and killed his pet lioness.
|
|
NC - Exotic pets - Chapter 153A. Counties. |
These two North Carolina statutes provide that a city or county may by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the possession or harboring of animals which are dangerous to persons or property. |
|
MS - Exotic Pets - Rule 32. Public Notice No. 3523.002; Dangerous Wildlife |
The following Mississippi regulations state that it is unlawful for any person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified as inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit or is exempt from holding a permit; these regulations, therefore, also indicate the requirements that must be met in order to obtain either a permit or an exemption. A violation of this act is a Class I violation and any person who has been convicted of a Class I violation shall be fined anywhere between $2,000.00 and $5,000.00, and shall be imprisoned in the county jail for 5 days. The person must also forfeit all hunting, trapping, and fishing privileges for a period of not less than 12 consecutive months from the date of conviction. Additionally, the regulations make provisions about how a wild animal shall be seized when these provisions have been violated. |
|
MS - Exotic pet - Chapter 8. Importation, Sale and Possession of Inherently Dangerous Wild Animals. |
This Mississippi chapter states that it is in the public interest to ensure the public health, safety and welfare by strictly regulating the importation, sale, transfer and possession of those wild animals inherently dangerous to humans. Several species are listed under this section as inherently dangerous to humans, including non-human primates, wolves, bears, hyenas, big cats, and hippopotamus, among others. It is unlawful for a person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit. Those persons who were in possession of such animals on or before May 1, 1997 were able to continue possession provided that they complied with the permit process. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant must have provided proof of liability insurance in the amount of $100,000.00 for each wild animal up to a maximum of $1,000,000.00. |
|
MS - Dangerous Animal - Chapter 3. Crimes Against the Person. |
This Mississippi law makes an owner liable for manslaughter if he or she wilfully allows a mischievous animal to go at large, or it goes at large because the owner fails to exercise ordinary care, and the animal, while at large or not confined, kills any human being who took reasonable precautions to avoid the animal. |
|
Moreland v. Adams |
A motorcyclist died when he ran into a calf on the road. His family sued for wrongful death. The court held that the owner of the calf was not liable because of open range immunity.
|
|
Molinari v. Tuskegee University |
A veterinary student was kicked by a cow while trying to perform a medical procedure. The student brought a personal injury lawsuit against the professor and university for negligently allowing the university-owned cow to kick her and not providing timely medical treatment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
|
|
MO - Rabies - Chapter 322. Protection Against Rabies |
This chapter concerns laws preventing the transmission and control of rabies and other zoonotic diseases. Section 322.140 provides that if a county does not adopt rules and regulations pursuant to sections 322.090 to 322.130, whenever an animal bites or otherwise possibly transmits rabies or any zoonotic disease, the incident shall be immediately reported to the county health department. It also provides that the owner of an owner that bites is responsible for the costs associated with rabies testing and/or treatment. Further, the owner of an animal that bites or otherwise possibly transmitted rabies or any zoonotic disease shall be liable to an injured party for all damages done by the animal. |
