|
ID - Slaughter, animal - Chapter 58. Public Health and Safety |
These Idaho statutes make certain activities involved with animal slaughter criminal. For example, it is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to put the carcass of any dead animal into any river, creek, pond or street. It is a misdemeanor to slaughter or sell any animal that has been confined for 20 hours without water or 48 hours without food. The statutes also make it a felony if a mischievous animal is allowed to run at large and the animal kills a person. |
|
IL - Dog Bite - Chapter 510. Animals |
This Illinois statute provides the health procedure for dog bites. When a state health administrator receives information that any person has been bitten by an animal, the administrator shall have such dog or other animal confined under the observation of a licensed veterinarian for a period of not less than 10 days. People with knowledge of dog bites are required to inform the administrator or his or her representative promptly. It is unlawful for the owner of the animal to euthanize, sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of any animal known to have bitten a person, until it is released by the administrator. |
|
IL - Exotic pets - 5/48-10. Dangerous animals |
This Illinois law states that no person shall have a right of property in, keep, harbor, care for, act as custodian of or maintain in his or her possession any dangerous animal or primate except at a properly maintained zoological park, federally licensed exhibit, circus, college or university, scientific institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, hound running area, or animal refuge in an escape-proof enclosure. A "dangerous animal" is defined as a lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, bear, hyena, wolf or coyote.This Section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of a primate before January 1, 2011, from continuing to possess that primate if the person registers the animal by providing written notification to the local animal control administrator on or before April 1, 2011. Violation is a Class C misdemeanor. |
|
IL - Exotic pets - Act 68. Herptiles-Herps Act |
Under the Herptiles-Herps Act reptiles and amphibians are exempt from the definition of “aquatic life” under the Fish and Aquatic Life Code. All rules and enforcement actions under the Illinois Conservation Law and the dangerous animals statutes related to reptiles and amphibians are now covered exclusively by this Act. |
|
In Re Jackie King |
|
|
Incidents & Attacks Involving Captive Chimpanzees |
This article describes several incidents in which captive chimpanzees have escaped, attacked or threatened humans, or have been injured or killed as a result of such an incident.
|
|
Jackson v. Mateus |
Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant after she was bitten by the defendant’s cat and required medical attention as a result of the bite. Plaintiff found the defendant’s cat on her property and mistakenly started petting the cat, thinking that it was one of her own cats. As plaintiff was petting the cat, it bit her causing her injury. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against defendant for not restraining the cat. The court held in favor of the defendant because the court found that this incident was not foreseeable and because it was not foreseeable, the defendant did not owe a duty to restrain the animal under the common law, municipal law, or state law. |
|
Kent v. Polk County Board of Supervisors |
The Iowa Supreme Court held that a county ordinance regulating possession of dangerous and vicious animals did not violate the due process, equal protection, or takings clauses of the Constitution (in this instance, appellant was the owner of a lion). The regulation was a legitimate exercise of police power, which was rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting public safety.
|
|
Kindel v. Tennis |
Plaintiff was an employee of a dairy farm owned by defendants. In 2007, he was injured by a bull owned and controlled by defendants while working on the defendants' farm . The Appellate Court disagreed with the lower court, finding that the employee's allegations were sufficient to support a claim against the farm owners under the Animal Control Act. The court found it was a question of fact whether it was plaintiff's job to care for the bull, and whether that animal was in the care and/or custody of plaintiff at the time of the injury.
|
|
Klobnak v. Wildwood Hills, Inc. |
Plaintiffs brought suit against a ranch after their car struck two of the ranch's horses on the highway. The trial court dismissed holding no duty of care was breached by the ranch because Iowa no longer had a statute prohibiting animals from roaming. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed reasoning that a duty of ordinary care still exists.
|
