Transport/Vehicle
Displaying 61 - 70 of 86
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| CT - Vehicle - § 52-557u. Entering the passenger motor vehicle of another to remove child or animal from vehicle | This Connecticut law, effective in 2018, gives an affirmative defense to civil or criminal penalties for any person who enters a passenger motor vehicle of another, including entry by force, to remove a child or animal from the passenger motor vehicle provided certain criteria are met. The person must have a reasonable belief that such entry is necessary to remove the child or animal from imminent danger of serious bodily harm and use no more force than necessary under the circumstances. Additionally, the person must report the entry to law enforcement/public safety within a reasonable period of time after entry and must also take reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of the child or animal after removing from the vehicle. |
| CT - Vehicle - § 14-272b. Transport of dogs in pick-up trucks. Restrictions | This Connecticut law prohibits any person from transporting a dog in the open bed of a pick-up truck unless the dog is secured in a cage or other container to prevent it from jumping out of the truck. |
| CT - Vehicle - Title 14. Motor Vehicles. Use of the Highway by Vehicles. Gasoline | Any person who knowingly operates a motor vehicle and causes injury or death to a dog shall stop and render assistance and shall immediately report such injury or death to the dog's owner or the owner's representative. If unable to ascertain and locate such owner or representative, the injury or death shall be reported to a police officer. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction. |
| CT - Transport, poultry - § 53-249. Cruelty to poultry | This statute makes it illegal to transport poultry in any manner that is not sanitary, warm, and ventilated. Poultry must receive "reasonable care" to "prevent unnecessary suffering." Violation of this provision is a class D misdemeanor. |
| CT - Horse - § 22-415. Inhumane transportation of equines. Penalty. Regulations | This Connecticut law makes it unlawful to carry any equine in an unnecessarily cruel or inhumane manner, or in a way and manner which might endanger the equine or knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits such equine to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind. Violation results in a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars. [Also see the administrative regulations at https://www.animallaw.info/administrative/connecticut-equines-transportation-equines]. |
| CT - Equines - Transportation of Equines | These Connecticut regulations provide the requirements for transporting equines. Under the regulations, the use of double deck or possum belly vehicles to transport horses is strictly prohibited. |
| Colombia - Transportation - Ley 2138 |
This law establishes the parameters for the substitution of vehicles of animal traction in Colombia, and standards that promote the welfare of horses and cattle that are used for this purpose. It also offers the necessary guarantees to those who derive their livelihood from this type of vehicles so they can access social transformation programs. Vehicles of animal traction are to be substituted by motor vehicles that are ready to circulate, are in new condition, are approved for carrier transportation, and are suitable for the topography and distances of the corresponding municipality. District, municipal and departmental authorities are in charge of carrying out the substitution programs for animal-drawn vehicles, except in cases where they are intended for rural transport in municipalities whose geographical condition does not allow other means for tourist, agricultural, livestock, forestry, and sports activities. Replacement programs are to be financed with departmental, municipal, and district funding. This law gives local governments 10 months from its promulgation to complete a census with 100% of the data on animal-drawn vehicles and their owners. |
| Colombia - Transportation - Decreto 178, 2012 | This decreto relates to measures for the replacement of vehicles of animal traction. The term ‘vehicle of animal traction’ is defined by the National Traffic Code, Ley 769, 2002 as a “non-motorized vehicle pulled or moved by an animal. Decreto 178, 2012, regulates and approves the substitution of the vehicles of animal traction for cargo vehicles as a way to facilitate and incentivize the development of alternatives for the drivers. |
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 84, 1989, Statue of Animal Protection | Ley 84 is the National Statute of Animal Protection in Colombia. Ley 84 establishes the general duties of humans towards animals. Among these duties includes the duty to provide animals with enough food, water and medicine to guarantee their well-being; the duty to provide animals with appropriate space so they can move adequately; and the duty to provide appropriate shelter. Article 7 contains the exceptions to the duty to protect animals, meaning that the practices listed in this section are legal under the current legal system even though they might be inherently cruel. These exceptions correspond to the different variations and forms of bullfighting rejoneo, coleo, las corridas de toros, novilladas, corralejas, becerradas y tientas, and cockfighting. Ley 84 also regulates the slaughter of animals for non-consumption, animals in experiments and research, animal transportation, as well as hunting and fishing, resources, penalties, legal competency, and procedures to follow in regard to this law. |
| Coe v. Lewsader | In this case, Ryan and Hillary Coe filed suit against Eric and Trish Lewsader for damages resulting from an accident involving the Lewsader’s dog. Ryan Coe was driving his motorcycle while intoxicated on a public highway when he hit the Lewsader’s dog that was lying in the middle of the street. Coe suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and filed suit against the Lewsader’s according to Section 16 of the Illinois Animal Attacks or Injuries statute. According to the Act, “if a dog or other animal, without provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is liable in civil damages.” In order to be awarded damages under the Act, the Coe’s needed to establish “some overt act” of the Lewsader’s dog . As a result, the question before the court was whether or not the Lewsader’s dog was acting overtly when it was lying in the middle of the street at the time of the accident. Ultimately, the court held that the dog was not acting overtly by lying in the middle of the street. Also, the court rejected the Coe’s argument that the dog had acted overtly when it walked into the street before lying down. The court rejected this argument because the overt act needed to take place at the time of the injury, not before. As a result, the court found that the Lewsader’s were not liable for civil damages under the Act because the dog had not acted overtly at the time of accident and therefore the Act did not apply in this situation. |