|
TN - Dangerous Animals - § 39-17-101. Dangerous snakes or reptiles; handling |
This Tennessee law makes it an offense for a person to display, exhibit, handle, or use a poisonous or dangerous snake or reptile in a manner that endangers the life or health of any person. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor. |
|
TX - Dangerous - Subchapter E: Dangerous Wild Animals |
Chapter 822, Subchapter E regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. It imposes a registration requirement upon the owner of a dangerous wild animal and also sets forth insurance requirements. One thing to note is that Texas animal cruelty laws do not apply to these wild animals. |
|
TX - Exotic pets - Subchapter A. Regulation of Keeping of Wild Animals |
In this subchapter, wild animal is defined as a nondomestic animal that the commissioners court of a county determines is dangerous and is in need of control in that county. The commissioners court of a county by order may prohibit or regulate the keeping of a wild animal in the county. A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if the person violates an order adopted under this subchapter and the order defines the violation as an offense. |
|
UK - Dangerous - Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 ("DWAA") |
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act ("DWAA") was originally enacted in 1976 and amended in 2010. The act ensures that individuals who keep wild animals do so in a way that minimizes the risk to the public. In particular, the act provides that no person may keep any dangerous wild animal except under the authority of a licence granted by a local authority. The local authority that holds the licence may enter the premises where the animal is being kept at all reasonable times to determine whether an offence has been committed in violation of the act. Zoos, circuses, and pet shops are exempt from the act. The act has an accompanying Schedule that specifies the kinds of dangerous wild animals for which a person must obtain a licence under the act.
|
|
Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership |
Minor sued farmer horse-owner for negligence after farmer's horse bit him. The Appellate Court reversed summary judgment, holding that a fact issue remained as to whether the farmer had notice that the horse belonged to a class of domestic animals that possessed a natural propensity to bite. Such knowledge may make certain injuries foreseeable, giving rise to a duty to use reasonable care to restrain the animal to prevent injury.
|
|
WA - Exotic Pet - Chapter 16.30. Dangerous Wild Animals |
This Washington chapter passed in 2007 regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. By definition, a potentially dangerous wild animal includes, among others, lions, tigers, captive-bred cougars, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, wolves, (but excluding wolf-hybrids), bears, hyenas, non-human primates, elephants, rhinoceroses, certain reptiles, and venomous snakes. A person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring into the state, or have custody or control of a potentially dangerous wild animal. A person in legal possession of a potentially dangerous wild animal prior to July 22, 2007, and who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession of the animal for the remainder of the animal's life. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
