|
Table of Dog Bite Strict Liability Statutes |
Approximately 36 states have strict liability laws for dog bites. This table illustrates the primary components of each state's strict liability law such as animal covered, type of injury, place injury occurs, and exceptions under the law. The table does not discuss dangerous dog laws (although you can find a table of these laws under Legal Topics, Comparative Tables in the navigation bar). |
|
Table of State and Federal Laws Concerning Dogs Chasing Wildlife |
This table, developed by Joyce Tischler of ALDF, summarizes the pertinent federal regulations and state laws related to dogs chasing wildlife. External links to state DNR sites listing further rules are also provided.
|
|
Tarquinio v. City of Lakewood, Ohio (unpublished) |
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment from the court that Lakewood City Ordinance (“LCO”) 506.01, which bans pit bull dogs or those dogs with "appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of such breeds," unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution Home Rule provisions. In this motion, plaintiffs argue that LCO 506 conflicts with and impermissibly expands the provisions of Ohio Revised Code § 955.22. The court found that while § 955.22 outlines requirements that must be met by a person who houses vicious dogs, including all pit bulls, it does not explicitly permit pit bulls. The court found that the General Assembly intended to allow municipalities to regulate the possession of pit bulls.
|
|
Terral v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. |
A motorcyclist hit a dog wandering on the road and sued the defendant under strict liability theory. The court found that the defendant was strictly liable because he owned the dog in fact. Although the dog was originally a stray, the court upheld a finding of ownership because the defendant regularly fed the dog and harbored it on his property.
|
|
The Case Against Dog Breed Discrimination by Homeowners' Insurance Companies |
Part I of this article gives an overview of the problem: dog breed discrimination by insurers, as well as a related problem of breed-specific legislation by some states. Part II analyzes the major scientific studies on dog bites, showing that no one has adequately proven that some breeds are more inherently dangerous than others. Part III shows that breed discrimination and breed-specific legislation are opposed by most veterinary and animal groups. Part IV demonstrates that insurers have been ignoring the unique and special role that pets play in millions of American homes. Part V shows how the insurance industry is a highly regulated industry which subjects itself to legislative control where, as here, the public is being harmed by underwriting decisions not driven by actuarial justification.
|
|
The Golden Retriever Rule: Alaska's Identity Privilege for Animal Adoption Agencies and for Adoptive Animal Owners |
In this Comment, the authors examine recent national and Alaskan developments regarding a limited testimonial privilege for animal adoption agencies and adoptive owners. Unlike most testimonial privileges, this new privilege e did not exist at common law and has only a limited foundation in statutes or rules of evidence. The authors conclude by noting the effect this privilege has on replevin and conversion cases involving lost animals that have been adopted by new owners.
|
|
The Jaws That Bite, The Claws That Snatch |
This article explores the incongruity between the recent Louisiana decision in State v. Michels that allowed for the presence of a seemingly vicious dog to sustain the element of "dangerous weapon" in an aggravated sexual battery conviction. Louisiana traditionally only allows inanimate objects to be construed as weapons for dangerous weapons charges. The author suggests the Louisiana judiciary should align itself with the national jurisprudence to allow animate objects be viewed as dangerous weapons for the purpose of criminal prosecutions.
|
|
There Are No Bad Dogs, Only Bad Owners: Replacing Strict Liability With A Negligence Standard In Dog Bite Cases |
Should the law treat dogs as vicious animals or loving family companions? This article analyzes common law strict liability as applied to dog bite cases and the shift to modern strict liability statutes, focusing on the defense of provocation. It discusses the inconsistency in the modern law treatment of strict liability in dog bite cases. The article then resolves why negligence is the proper cause of action in dog bite cases. The Author draws comparisons among dog owner liability in dog bite cases, parental liability for a child’s torts, and property owner liability for injuries caused by his property. The Author concludes by proposing a negligence standard to be applied in dog bite cases.
|
|
Thurber v. Apmann |
In 2007, the plaintiff and defendant were walking their respective dogs when one of defendant's two dogs, a retired K-9 dog, attacked the plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages she received as a result. While each dog did received "handler protection" training (where a K-9 dog is trained to react to an aggressive attack on defendant while on duty), that situation had never arisen because the dogs acted in passive roles as explosive detection dogs. Plaintiff countered that the severity of the attack coupled with the dogs' breed and formal police training should have put defendant on notice of the dogs' vicious propensities. In affirming the summary judgment, this court found that the formal police training was not evidence of viciousness and there was no support to plaintiff's assertion that defendant kept the dogs as "guard dogs."
|
|
Tighe v. N. Shore Animal League Am. |
In this New York case, the defendant appeals denial of its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries after the dog she adopted from defendant-North Shore Animal League America bit plaintiff's face causing severe personal injuries. Plaintiff alleges causes of action that include negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interposed a claim for punitive damages. After defendant opposed the filing, plaintiff submitted evidence that the dog previously had been returned to defendant animal shelter after biting another individual in the face. This court noted that, under long-standing rule, the owner of a domestic animal who knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities is liable for harm. However, here, even if defendant failed to disclose the dog's vicious propensities, that breach was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. In fact, the dog showed aggressive behavior during the three-and-a-half months the plaintiff owned the dog (including a previous bite to plaintiff's hand). This, in effect, placed the plaintiff on notice of the dog's vicious propensities. The court found that the lower court erred by not granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. With regard to the reach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the court found that even if a transaction from an animal shelter is subject to the warranty, the plaintiff failed to notify defendant of the "nonconformity of the goods" (to wit, the dog) within a reasonable period of time. The order was reversed. |
