|
People v. Arcidicono |
The court held the bailee of a horse liable for failing to provide necessary sustenance to the horse, even though the owner of the horses had refused to pay for the necessary feed.
|
|
People v Arcidicono |
The defendant was properly convicted of cruelty when a horse in his custody and care had to be destroyed due to malnutrition. The defendant was in charge of feeding the gelding, and was aware of his loss of weight. He knew the diet was inadequate but failed to provide more food. The defendant was guilty of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 for failing to provide proper sustenance to the horse.
|
|
People of the State of New York v. Mary Dawn Sitors |
This action is an appeal from dismissal of criminal charges against a woman accused of acts of cruelty on her horses. The Town Court dismissed the criminal charges, finding that since the Catskill Animal Sanctuary's petition seeking the posting of security to care for the horses was dismissed (which had a lower standard of proof than in a criminal action), this necessarily meant it would be impossible to obtain a criminal conviction under the higher standard. Essentially, the Town Court's decision reflected a determination that one cannot violate New York's state cruelty law unless the animal dies due to lack of sustenance or care. The County Court found this reasoning erroneous; a violation under the law occurs when one fails to provide necessary sustenance, not only those acts or omissions that result in an animal's death. The criminal actions were thus, reinstated against defendant. |
|
Parker v. Parker |
Plaintiff and his 12 year-old quarter horse were visiting defendant at defendant's property when defendant's dog rushed at the horse causing it to run into a steel fence. The horse suffered severe head trauma, which necessitated its later euthanization. Plaintiff filed suit for damages asserting liability under common law negligence and O.R.S. 609.140(1) - the statute that allows an owner to recover double damages where livestock is injured due to being injured, chased, or killed by another person's dog. The appellate court agreed with plaintiff that O.R.S. 609.140(1) creates an statutory cause of action independent from negligence. Further, the court found that plaintiff fell within the class of persons the statute aims to protect because the legislature did not intend to limit the statute's application to property owned by the livestock's owner.
|
|
Pagel v. Yates |
Horse owner sued breeder for negligence and conversion after breeder returned the wrong mare. On issue of damages, Appellate Court held that evidence was insufficient to support the jury award because 1) evidence of value of mare’s offspring four years after conversion was irrelevant and prejudicial; 2) trial court's instruction to jury allowed recovery for the horse's unborn offspring as well as fair market value of horse in foal, which permitted a double recovery; and 3) owner could not recover his expenses after he learned of switch and made no effort to resolve the problem because he had duty to avoid further loss.
|
|
PA - Pittsburgh - CHAPTER 635: Other Animals And Fowl ( Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals) |
These Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ordinances prohibit any person from riding or driving any animal-drawn conveyance on any street or sidewalk within the city except by permit or by authorization from the Director of the Department of Public Works. Whoever violates this provision will be fined $100 for the first offense and $300 for any subsequent offenses. Additionally, these ordinances provide provisions related to rodeos and whoever violates these provisions will be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment of up to 30 days, or both.
|
|
PA - Philadelphia - Chapter 10-100 Animals (Stables, Horse Ownership, Sale of Horsemeat - Secs. 10-107 - 10-108.2.) |
These Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ordinances require a person to obtain a license for operating a commercial stable; for renting a horse; for operating a horse drawn carriage, and for owning a horse in general. Not only do these ordinances provide information on how to obtain these licenses, but they also include horse care standards for each respective license. Penalties for violating these provisions and a prohibition on the sale of horse meat for human consumption are also included.
|
|
PA - Equine - Chapter 13. Equine Activity. |
These statutes comprise Pennsylvania's Equine Activity Act, which sent into effect on February 21, 2006. Under the law, liability for negligence shall only be barred where knowing voluntary assumption of risk is proven in a particular case. However, the Act provides immunity only where a sign that states, "You assume the risk of equine activities pursuant to Pennsylvania law," is conspicuously posted on the premises in two or more locations. |
|
Overview of Trainer Responsibility for Racehorse Breakdowns in New York |
This legal summary contends that trainers should be held criminally liable when racehorses break down under the New York anti-cruelty statute, Agriculture and Markets Law § 353. This section prohibits anyone from unjustifiably overdriving, torturing, injuring, or killing animals. By racing unfit horses, the trainers are not only withholding medical care, but are causing pain and further injury to the horses, which is cruel under the statute. Knowingly racing an unfit horse meets the definition of “cruelty” under § 353, and a guilty trainer should be held to account.
|
|
Overview of Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption |
This overview focuses on horsemeat for human consumption, with a special look at its status in the U.S. It details the expiration of the federal "ban" on horse slaughter that existed from 2007 to 2011. Recently, federal appropriations omitted the horsemeat inspection defunding provision, allowing the resumption of horse slaughter in the U.S.
|
