|
WI - Dangerous dog - 174.11. Claims for damage by dogs to domestic animals including ranch mink |
This Wisconsin provides that the owner of any domestic animal, including a ranch mink, which is attacked, chased, injured or killed by a dog may, within 3 days after the owner has knowledge or notice thereof, file a written claim for damages with the clerk of the town, village or city in which the damage occurred. A hearing then occurs where witnesses may be subpoenaed under oath, and testimony relative to the claim is taken. The county board shall allow, as the amount of a claim for a domestic animal, including a ranch mink, injured by a dog, the amount determined to be the total of the costs resulting from the injury including a loss in fair market value but the total amount of the claim may not exceed the fair market value. |
|
WI - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Wisconsin statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include dog licensing provisions, hunting laws impacting dogs, and seizure of dogs by humane officers. |
|
WI - Dog Bite - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.12. Actions against owners |
This Wisconsin statute outlines the allowance procedure by counties for damage done by dogs after a claim is filed and the county sues to recover from the owner of the damaging dog. The claimant shall first be notified that such action is contemplated and shall have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to offer further evidence in support of the claimant's claim. It also provides that this chapter shall not in any way limit the existing right or authority of any town, village or city to pass ordinances for the keeping and regulating of dogs, or repeal or annul any existing statute or ordinance or local regulation governing the keeping and regulating of dogs. |
|
WI - Dog, licenses - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.06. Listing |
This Wisconsin statute provides that every town, village and city shall annually, by September 1, ascertain by diligent inquiry the dogs owned or kept within the assessment district. The listing official shall enter in the records for personal property assessments, or in a separate record, all dogs in the district subject to tax, to whom they are assessed, the name, number, sex, spayed or unspayed, neutered or unneutered, breed and color of each dog. |
|
WI - South Milwaukee - Vicious dog - § 23.20 REGULATING VICIOUS DOGS. |
In 2017, the City of South Milwaukee amended its section on "vicious dogs" to remove the prohibition on the keeping of dogs described as "pit bull dogs." This ban was repealed on June 27, 2017. |
|
WI - St. Francis - Breed - § 180-5 Dangerous and Vicious Dogs |
In St. Francis, Wisconsin, no person may harbor, keep or maintain any pit bull that was not registered and licensed by October 1, 2001. Any person having knowledge that another has an unregistered pit bull must file a sworn affidavit with the Municipal Court Clerk. Owners of pit bulls that are allowed must comply with all provisions applicable to dangerous dogs, such as securely confining the dog, displaying a dangerous dog sign, and if off of the premises, keep the dog muzzled and on a leash. A violation may result in impoundment of the dog, as well as a forfeiture of up to $1,000.
|
|
Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe |
Brooke Wilkison (Brooke) got an American Staffordshire Terrier (pit bull) in 2015. In 2016, the city of Arapahoe passed an ordinance regarding dangerous dogs which contained a restriction on owning a Rottweiler or an American Staffordshire Terrier within city limits. The ordinance allowed for dogs licensed prior to January 1, 2017 to be grandfathered in as acceptable. Brooke did not have his dog licensed prior to the that date. Law enforcement told Brooke he could not keep the dog. Brooke filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent Arapahoe from implementing and enforcing the ordinance. The trial court found for Brooke and Arapahoe appealed. Arapahoe's first assignment of error is that the court erred by applying the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to the ordinance. The Court found that Arapahoe was not exempt from the strictures of the FHA. Arapahoe's second assignment of error was that the Court erred by enjoining enforcement of the ordinance against Brooke because Brooke's accommodation is not reasonable and necessary. The Court found that Brooke failed to meet his burden of proof that his requested accommodation is necessary for him to receive the same enjoyment from his home as a non-disabled person would receive. Brooke already owned another dog and the ordinance only covered certain dog breeds. Brooke's other claims for relief were remanded to the district court. In conclusion, the district court erred in entering a declaratory judgment and enjoining Arapahoe from enforcing the ordinance as applied to Brooke. |
|
Williams v. Galofaro |
Housekeeper tripped over the family dog, sustaining injuries. She and her husband sued homeowners and their insurer for damages. The Court of Appeal found for defendants, holding that the dog did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm because plaintiffs did not show that the risk of injury resulting from puppy-like behavior multiplied by the gravity of the harm threatened outweighed the utility of keeping the dog as a pet.
|
|
Williams v. Hill |
In this Alabama case, a motorcyclist and passenger were injured when they collided with defendant's dog while traveling on public roadway and brought an action for damages. The Circuit Court, Elmore County granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and the motorcyclist and passenger appealed. The Court held that there is no recover at common law, as no negligence was shown. The Court would not accept the proposal that all owners should be charged with the knowledge that dogs will chase cars.
“We hold that the owner of a dog may not be charged with the general knowledge that all dogs chase motor vehicles, and therefore that the law will not impute such general knowledge to dog owners in actions for injuries incurred. We, therefore, affirm the defendant's summary judgment.”
|
|
Williams v. Spinola |
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $3,600 in compensatory and $4,000 in punitive damages for the unlawful killing of plaintiff's dogs. Defendant contended at trial that the dogs were trying molest her sheep. With regard to defendant's claim on appeal that punitive damages were not appropriate in this case, the court agreed that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury. The court affirmed the jury's finding with regard to denial of defendant's directed verdict, and reversed the award of punitive damages.
|
