The Tennessee Code Annotated Bibliography

1) Under Florida Statute Section 767.04 which sets the defenses in which a dog owner can avoid liability due to injury caused by a dog bite, can dog owner avoid liability by using the defense of provocation for injuries caused by a dog bite when the owner’s dog bit an 8 year old child, when said minor while dressed in a cat costume came onto our client’s property, noticed client’s Yorkshire Terrier puppy, ran up to the window in which he viewed the puppy, while knocking on client’s window and yelling “trick or treat” with other costumed children on Halloween and was bitten when the owner opened the door to hand out treats to

I asked Mr. Smith was the dog name Heinz currently inside the house. He stated that it was in the house in the back room. I explained to Mr. Smith that we had a report that his dog was running loose and came towards his neighbors. Mr. Smith stated that his dog wasn’t outside with the exception of using the restroom. Mr. Smith asked how his dog got out; I explained that it possible it got out on the other side of his yard. Mr. Smith exited his house and proceeded to the north side of his house. Mr. Smith walked along his fence line; he noticed a wooden fence panel on the ground with an opening in his fence. Mr. Smith placed the panel back on his fence. Ms. Smith came out of the house a short time later and became aware that there was an opening in their fence. Ms. Smith wanted to know the next course of action; I stated I will return to her after I talk to Mr.

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.

Baker stated that the dog owner was very apologetic for the incident. Emergency services arrive at the location and advise Ms. Baker to seek medical attention but did not transport her to the hospital. Ms. Baker went to Mt. Carmel Urgent Care to address her wounds. On 06/01/17, Ms. Baker wound got infected and she had to return to Mt. Carmel West and The Ohio State University Medical Center to deal with the infection in her left hand. I explain to Ms. Baker and Mr. Moore the options they have available to them in regards to pursuing criminal charges against the dog owner. Ms. Baker and Mr. Moore did not want to pursue charges against the neighbors; they didn’t want to cause any issues. I asked Ms. Baker if she took pictures of her injuries, she stated she did. I provided my contact information for the pictures to be sent to my email address to attach to incident. I advised them that I would go to 1118 Obetz Road and talk to dog owner in regards to the incident and determine if the dog is current on dog license and

Police involvement was necessary since security was unable to assist that night; security services are complementary since the guard must service all three of Ms. Miner’s complexes, thus encouraging the use of police with emergency situations. Ms. Miner was uneasy when she learned about the assault and personally emailed the Plaintiff to inquire about her condition and to clarify that damages to the unit be repaired. Yet, Plaintiff responded by placing the blame on her ex-boyfriend for the damage, claiming that he wasn’t a guest (Exhibit 7); nonetheless, Plaintiff reluctantly paid $2500 for repair costs

Maryland authorities consistently demonstrate that the necessary showing of foreseeability of harm required to make a prima facie showing that one is liable for the criminal activities of another is exceedingly high. For example, in Scott, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified the question of whether a landlord owes a duty to protect tenants from criminal activities in the common areas of an apartment complex to the Court of Appeals. Scott, 278 Md. at 161-62. In that case, a Plaintiff was murdered in an

On 09/18/16 at 3:11pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 192 Dana Ave on a injury-possible dangerous or vicious dog, owner known. I arrived at the location and spoke to victim Cynthia Masters. I asked Ms. Masters what happened, she stated that she was walking up to the front porch of her father’s house when a small brown dog, came off the front porch of 190 Dana Ave bite at her dress she tried to move away from the dog, but the dog was able to bite her right leg. The dog was attached to a retractable leash that was able to reach over to her father’s front steps. Ms. Masters wrote out a statement of facts in regards to the incident. Ms. Masters had a visible injury to her right leg/calf area; I took pictures of Ms. Masters injuries.

Reasoning: The state provided sufficient evidence that based off the defendant's prior history of purchasing aggressively powerful dogs and failure to train them. She also failed to ignore the advice from experts for proper training and the warnings for failure to do so. She has also failed to properly secure her fence and the evidence for the prior incidents of her dogs getting loose. The evidence was sufficient to prove that she could have foreseen the possibility of her dogs killing someone.

Landlords and business owners owe a duty to their tenants and patrons for foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are committed on The approach to premises liability is based on the relationship between the parties at the time of injury. (ROWE) As the legal status of the visitor improves, the possessor of the land owes more of an obligation of protection. (ROWE). In Rowe, where an officer was injured while checking a vacant building, the court ruled that the landowners had a duty even though the officer was aware of the condition. The court reasoned in Rowe that the officer had the status of an licensee and the landowner owed a duty to warn of any dangerous conditions that the landowner new of or had reason to know and of which the officer

This is called animal cruelty and this happened because there was a dog fight between a German shepherd and a pit bull. It happened in mid April and the neighbor, Roger was trying to defend the German shepherd from the pit bull. Not only did the dog fight happen, but Roger had a son that was in the middle of the two dogs. So, Roger stabbed the pit bull that was trying to attack and also protected his son. In addition, the owner, Rocky Faircloth, who owned his pit bull, Semi, and Roger are dealing with court in

When the Plaintiff resisted, Bailey physically and verbally abused her. Bailey threw her against the wall, slapped her, kicked her, punched holes in the living room walls, tore a hallway door off, and broke a bedroom window. Hearing the Plaintiff’s screaming, one of the neighbors called the police and another neighbor called Dan Houston, who never responded to the incident. The altercation stopped when the police arrived after fifteen minutes. But, Bailey’s vicious attack caused severe physical injuries to the Plaintiff including three broken ribs, and numerous cuts and bruises. She also suffered economic damages because the Defendant required her to fix the damages Bailey caused to the basic facilities (door, window, and walls) spending $2,500.

On 09/03/16 at 7:39pm, I Deputy Warden N. Christian was dispatched to 1007 S 18th St on a dog running loose. I arrived at the location and spoke to complainant Sandra Marcum. Ms. Marcum stated that a brindle pit bull was running loose earlier in the day. The pit bull was unsupervised and not on a leash and would come on her front porch. Ms. Marcum pointed out where the dog lived. I went to 689 E Whittier St, where I talk to dog owner Kathleen Mulvaney. Ms. Mulvaney admitted that her dog was running loose earlier in the dog by accident. Ms. Mulvaney asked if I wanted to see the dog, I stated that I did. After seeing the dog, I asked If Ms. Mulvaney had proof of a dog license. Ms. Mulvaney stated that she didn’t. I issued Ms. Mulvaney

I walked to 1825 Elmore Ave where I knocked on the door. Dog owner Douglas Lawless answered the door. I explained to Mr. Lawless that I received a complaint about his dog running loose. Mr. Lawless admitted that his dog was loose early, and that his dog name Hamborn is somehow

Newhouse’s injuries, the paint store responded claiming that Mr. Newhouse had a duty to avoid the spill in the aisle and that Mr. Newhouse was distracted by his four-year-old daughter who was misbehaving in the aisle for him to notice the spill on the floor. In other words, the paint store claims that the spill was open and obvious and they should not be held liable for injuries where the dangers should have been known to Mr. Newhouse if he had not been distracted by his daughter. The open and obvious doctrine should not be viewed as some type of “exception” to the duty generally owed by the possessors to invitees, but rather as an essential part of the description of that duty. Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 384, 386, 464 Mich. 512, 516 (Mich.,2001). In resolving the issue concerning the open and obvious doctrine, we must determine whether the condition of Lion’s Paint Store at issue was open and obvious and if so, whether there were distinct characteristics of the situation that however made it unreasonably dangerous. Viewing the facts of the incident, the spilled paint was said to be clear in color which might have not been easily seen by Mr. Newhouse regardless if he was distracted by his daughter. The clear color paint is a distinct characteristic that made the situation unreasonably dangerous and therefore, under the Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.6304(8) constitutes “fault” on the store’s part for failing to fulfill their legal duty owed to the invitee, Mr.

Mr. Valdes left his pet cat, who he loved like family, in the care of the veterinarian for her to perform a procedure on it’s ears. While the cat was sedated the veterinarian mistakenly performed a declawing procedure and kept that information from Mr. Valdes even after multiple medical problems arose. Like the defendant in Ammon, the veterinarian did not intentionally cause emotional distress. Even though she withheld the information about the mistaken surgery after more problems arose, her actions unlike the actions of the defendant in Wilson, were not done with the purpose of causing harm. The court will likely hold that since the veterinarian did not mean for her actions to cause Mr. Valdes emotional distress her conduct was not