Animal Control Act Case Study

On 05/06/17, at 12:28pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 3162 E 5th Ave, on a dog on dog or cat attack no known owner of attack dog. I arrived at the location and met with the caller Carrie Samander and her boyfriend complainant Edward Oryan. I asked what happened, Mr. Oryan stated that he was walking his dog (grey/white Pit Bull) down the alley when the neighbor’s dog (white/brown Pit Bull) down the street (3189 E. 6th Ave) got loose and attacked his dog. Mr. Oryan dog protected him by getting in front of him and defending him against the pit bull. An unknown male Hispanic juvenile came out and tried to retrieve the white/brown pit bull. Mr. Oryan took his dog home and Ms. Samander than contacted the Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC). Ms. Samander stated that this is the second instance in the last few months that this white/brown pit bull got loose and attack her dog. Ms. Samander stated the injuries to her dog are minor but, that she will still be taking her dog to his injuries looked at. Ms. Samander dog had visible injuries to its ear, to the right side of its head and to the middle section of his back. I took

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

On 08/26/16 at 1:48pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was patrolling the 900 Block of Heyl Ave when I saw a black and white Chihuahua running loose with no known dog owner around. I followed the dog to 969 Heyl Ave where dog owner Donna Hanes open the door and let the dog inside. Ms. Hanes stated that the dog must have gotten loose when it was in the back yard. I asked Ms. Hanes if her dog was current on dog license and vaccinations, Ms. Hanes stated he was not. I issued Ms. Hanes violations for failure to license and failure to vaccinate her dog name Tito.

On 06/20/17 at 1:50pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was patrolling the 2100 Block of Lynbridge Drive when I saw a brindle/white pit bull running loose in the area. I took pictures of the dog loose. I exited my vehicle and chase the pit bull to the backyard of a fence in house. I placed a leash on the pit bull and put her in my vehicle. The pit bull had no identifying tags to indicate ownership. I transported the dog to the Franklin County Animal Shelter (FCACC). Dog owner Devon Gordon redeemed the dog on 06/24/17. Ms. Gordon did not show proof of dog license or vaccinations. I issued Ms. Gordon violations for failure to license, failure to vaccinate and failure to control her dog name Baby.

On 05/08/18, at approximately 10:56am, I Deputy Warden N. Christian with Franklin County Animal Care and Control (FCACC) was dispatched to 4514 Starrett Court on a dangerous or vicious dog investigation (dog owner owner's address). I arrived on scene at approximately 11:25am. I met with victim Syed Naque, who stated he was outside his resident when a medium size dog (black) came up from behind him and bit him on his right thigh. Mr. Naque stated the dog continue to come at him in a aggressive manner even after he went inside the house, the dog would charged the side door. A next door neighbor had to get the dog to leave the area. Mr. Naque stated the dog owner did come over to apologize in regards to the incident. I explained Mr. Naque

Malek, the plaintiff and defendant were neighbors. Pulley v. Malek, 495 N.E.2d 402 (Ohio 1986). The defendant’s dog was hit by a car and unable to move on its own. Id. at 403. The defendant then called the plaintiff asking for a veterinarian’s phone number. Id. Plaintiff gave the number and came outside asking if he could help. Id. Plaintiff then picked up the dog and carried it into the defendant’s house, even though the defendant refused assistance. Id. Inside the defendant’s house, plaintiff again picked up the dog attempting to place it into the defendant’s car and the dog bit the plaintiff. Id. Ohio Court of Appeals, stated that there was no evidence of the plaintiff maliciously provoking the dog. Id. However, no part of the R.C. 955.28(b) requires evidence of malicious provocation, to establish the plaintiff’s conduct as tormenting. Id. at 404. Most Ohio courts define tormenting as conduct involving greater annoyance, usually resulting in physical pain. Id. at 405. The Supreme Court of Ohio applied this definition to the facts in Pulley, and concluded that a reasonable jury would find the picking up of the injured dog, sufficient for tormenting. Id.

The Maryland Court of Appeals, for example, held in Tracey v. Solesky (2012) that owners and landlords are liable for injuries caused by pit bulls and cross-bred pit bull mixes, describing them as "inherently dangerous." The judgment of this court ruling meant that it was no longer necessary to prove that a pit bull who attacks a person or that pit bulls in general are dangerous; all pit bull owners are automatically held to a strict liability standard under Maryland law. This case established a new standard of liability for a specific breed of dog due to what some would argue is their aggressive and vicious nature.

When a dog that has bitten someone before is set loose again due to the carelessness of his owner, we don’t just hold the dog accountable. We blame the owner. From a legal standpoint, it wasn’t the madness of the dog that caused the damages; it was the owner’s negligence. In the case of Joshua Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia, Six Flags was the owner and their gang affiliated employees were the mad dogs. On July 3, 2007, Six Flags’ security allowed these employees, along with a plethora of other gang members, back into the amusement park after terrorizing an innocent family,which eventually led to the attack on Martin along with his brother and cousin. Because of Six Flags’ negligent actions and lack of immediate response to this life threatening situation, Martin sustained permanent brain damage leaving him in a coma for more than a week.

Under the Hawaii’s dog bite law, it specifies that a dog's owner or harborer is liable for injuries the dog causes to another person or property if the injuries are "proximately," or foreseeably, caused by the dog, the injured person was not trespassing, and the injured person did not provoke the dog. In this case, If Marty is not trespassing nor provoking the dog, then Lei is liable for the dog bite. If Lei knew or should have known that the animals were dangerous or otherwise had a propensity to harm others. Thus, in the problem, Lei would be liable to Marty for the dog’s bite under only those circumstances.

The court will likely find that Rocco biting Jeff on Ava’s property does not make Ava the owner of Rocco under the Illinois Animal Control Act. In the Illinois Animal Control Act, a dog owner can be held liable for injuries if the dog attacks when not provoked and the injured was peacefully and lawfully on the premises. 510 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/16 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through Pub. Act. 99-622, except for portions of Pub. Act. 99-576, Pub. Act. 99-585, Pub. Act. 99-604, and Pub. Act. 99-609 of the 2016 Reg. Legis. Sess.). According to the statue, “owner means any person having a right of property in an animal, or keeps or harbors an animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her”. 510 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2.16 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through Pub. Act. 99-904, except for portions of Pub. Act. 99-576, 585, 604, 622, 642, 648, 669, 674, 703, 711, 719, 720, 732, 744, 757, 758, 763, 773, 775, 788, 796, 801, 802, 817, 822, 841, 848, 860, 864, 874, 876, 881, 889, 892, 893, 894, and 901 of the 2016 Reg. Legis. Sess.). To be determined to be the owner by the jury, the person needs to provide some degree of care or custody or voluntarily assume care or control or have property interest in the animal. VanPlew v. Riccio, 739 N.E.2d 1023, 1026 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000); Docherty v. Sadler, 689 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997); Goennenwein by Goennenwein v. Rasof, 695 N.E.2d 541,

Increased awareness regarding animal cruelty would benefit society, pet owners, and animals themselves. When a problem is identified, it becomes easier to work out solutions. Animal cruelty is an issue on a global scale; animal torture and neglect does not only exist in the United States. Animal cruelty is the “crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in an imminent

In order to be relieved of liability, an owner must have a prominently placed “Bad Dog” sign that is easily readable. In Carroll, the court held that the purpose of having a prominently placed sign that is easily readable is to give actual notice of the risk of a bite to the victim. Carroll, 241 So. 2d at 682. The owner of the store in Carroll had a “Beware of Dog” sign beside the counter of the hardware store. Id. As the victim stood at the counter, the unseen dog lunged out and bit her on the face. Id. The victim filed suit against the dog owner and the court found that there was no liability because a “Bad Dog” sign was posted.

First of all, bias in relation with dog-bite statistics is a growing phenomenon, and given that many record go off of what bite victims say in regards to breeds, there is room for mistakes to be made. Zak George, former presenter of the TV show

If you’re a pit bull owner in Sioux City, Iowa, you are faced with certain ordinances that make it more difficult to own and keep your dog. This is Sioux City’s attempt to keep its citizens’ safe and prevent the abuse and harm of the pitbull. The city is trying to promote safety and animal advocacy. This ordinance is not effective because it punishes the animal and not the owner; it also does not take into account the animals individual personality. Legislators should create laws that consider all dogs based on their individual behavior and hold owner accountable for their animals.

R: There are two controlling rules which are relevant to Ms. Hintermeister’s facts. (1) “The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is . . . lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten . . . However, any negligence on the part of the person bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten person's negligence contributed to the biting incident. . . . However, the owner is not liable . . . if at the time of any such injury the owner had displayed in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words “Bad Dog.” . . . ” § 767.04, Fla. Stat. (1997).; (2) “Such a sign is effective to protect the property owner from liability regardless of the victim's failure to understand the warning solely because of an inability to read or write English. The term "easily readable" refers to a sign that is capable of being read and is not a requirement that any possible victim of a dog-bite be capable of reading the sign.” § 87, 2A Fla. Jur. 2d