Upload
phamthuy
View
219
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dog Bite Victim Representation Assessing Claims and Managing the Unique Challenges of Negotiating and Litigating Dog Bite Cases
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Paul H. Cannon, Simmons and Fletcher, Houston
Todd Berkey, Partner, Law Offices of Edgar Snyder & Associates, Pittsburgh
#1182517
#1479418
PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO
DEFENDANTS, DOG OWNERS
1. State the following as to each defendant:
a. Full names;
b. Any other names you have used or been known by;
c. Marital status at the time of the incident;
d. Present marital status;
e. Present home address;
f. Occupation at the time of the incident:
g. Present occupation;
h. Employer(s) at the time of the incident;
i. Present employer(s);
j. Dates of birth.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
2. State the identity of the person/persons who owned the property at [location] at
the time of the incident.
ANSWER:
3. State whether you rented or leased the property at [location] at the time of the
incident.
ANSWER:
4. If you rented or leased the property at [location] from any person(s) for all or part
of the two (2) year period up to and including [date], state the name(s) and all current or past
addresses of the landlord(s) of the property and/or any leasing agent or management company
which were used in connection with the rental.
ANSWER:
5. State specifically the portions of the premises that were leased or rented.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
6. Attach hereto a copy of all lease agreements between the defendants and their
landlord for a two (2) year period up to and including [date].
ANSWER:
7. State whether there were any verbal agreements between defendants and their
landlord other than those contained in the written lease, and if so, state the following:
a. Any and all provisions that were not in writing;
b. The dates that any and all such provisions went into effect;
c. How the provisions were communicated.
ANSWER:
8. State whether you had any homeowners or renters insurance at the time of the
incident on [date]. If you did have insurance, please state:
a. The name of the insurance company;
#1182517
#1479418
b. The policy number;
c. The effective dates of the policy;
d. The amounts of all coverage, including premises liability;
e. Attach a copy of the policy, including the policy declarations, that was in
effect at the time of plaintiff's incident.
ANSWER:
9. State the names and addresses of all eye witnesses to the incident in question
known to the defendants, defendants’ attorney, agents, investigators or other representatives.
ANSWER:
10. State the names and present addresses of all witnesses who have any knowledge
concerning the facts leading up to or the events immediately preceding the incident in question
which were known to the defendants, defendants’ attorney, agents, investigators and/or other
representatives.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
11. State the names and present addresses of all witnesses who have any knowledge
concerning the facts immediately after or subsequent to the incident in question which are known
to defendants, defendants’ attorney, agent, investigators or other representatives.
ANSWER:
12. Are any of the people listed in the answer to Interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 relatives,
agents, servants, employees or representatives of the defendants? If yes, identify the same.
ANSWER:
13. Please state whether the defendants, defendants’ agents, attorneys or
representatives have any statements in any form (i.e. oral, typed, written, taped, transcribed, etc.)
in their possession from any person, including the plaintiffs and defendants, who has either
witnessed this incident or has any knowledge about plaintiff’s claims, this incident, Plaintiff's
damages or any defense to this action.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
14. As to each statement referred to in Answer to Interrogatory 13, please state:
a. Whether the statement is in question and answer or in narrative form;
b. Whether the person giving it received a copy of said statement;
c. Whether the statement was signed;
d. If the statement was not signed, the method by which it was adopted or
approved;
e. The name and present address of the person by whom the statement was
taken;
f. When and where the statement was taken; and
g. Attach copies of all statements.
ANSWER:
15. List the names and present addresses of all investigators, representatives, or others
who have investigated the incident and/or claim referred to in plaintiffs’ Complaint, including
any and all representatives of [Insurance Company] and/or insurance companies on behalf of
defendants, in regard to either liability or damages. With respect to each such person, state the
following:
a. Employment affiliation at the time of the investigation;
#1182517
#1479418
b. Present employment affiliation;
c. The names and addresses of each and every party whom the person
contacted;
d. The date when contacted;
e. Whether an attempt was made to procure a statement in any form;
f. The results of such attempts;
g. Whether said investigator or representative submitted a report to any other
persons; and
h. If the answer to the preceding sub-interrogatory is in the affirmative,
attach a copy of said report to these answers, if said report is in writing. If
oral, give a summary of said report.
ANSWER:
16. State whether the defendants were at any time the owner or proprietor of the dog
which bit plaintiff on or about [date]. If not, state the name and address of the owner(s) of the
dog that bit plaintiff.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
17. State where said dog was kept or housed at the time the plaintiff was bitten (i.e.
inside, in a certain room, outside, in a certain area, location or designation) and for a period of 3
months prior to the incident.
ANSWER:
18. State the exact location of the dog when it bit plaintiff.
ANSWER:
19. State the names and present addresses of all persons present on the property of the
defendants, including those who were inside the premises, for a one-hour time period before and
after the defendants’ dog bit plaintiff.
ANSWER:
20. State where the dog was housed or kept in the twenty-four (24) hour period prior
to when plaintiff was bitten (in other words, state the whereabouts of the dog for a twenty-four
(24) hour period prior to the occurrence).
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
21. As of [date], was there a dog license for the dog which bit plaintiff? If so, please
state:
a. When that license was obtained;
b. Who obtained that license;
c. The last time prior to plaintiff's incident that the defendants obtained a
license for the dog;
d. From what entity was the license obtained.
ANSWER:
22. Please state whether the dog had ever been registered for any purpose with any
entity, agency or governmental municipality. If so, state:
a. The name and address of the entity/agency;
b. When the dog was last registered with any agency prior to the time the dog
bit the plaintiff;
c. Who registered the dog with the entity/agency;
ANSWER:
23. State the name(s) and current address(es) of the person(s) who was/were
responsible for the direct supervision, care and control of the dog for a twenty-four (24) hour
period prior in time to when the plaintiff was bitten.
#1182517
#1479418
ANSWER:
24. At the time of the incident, state whether said dog was restrained, chained, locked
up, caged or in any other way controlled. If so, state the exact nature as to how the dog was
restrained.
ANSWER:
25. State your version of how this incident occurred. State all facts upon which
defendants support their version of how this incident occurred, and state from what source
defendants received the information and/or facts.
ANSWER:
26. State specifically your version of all events that took place after plaintiff was
bitten up to and including the time that he fell.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
27. State the specific area where plaintiff fell, including a description of the surface
on which he fell.
ANSWER:
28. State whether there were any warnings, warning signs, Beware of Dog signs or
any other type of signage placed on defendants’ property or premises at the time when the
plaintiff was bitten. If so, please describe the exact nature and location of any such signs.
ANSWER:
29. State whether there were any verbal or oral warnings regarding the dog given to
the plaintiff prior in time to when the plaintiff was bitten. If so, set forth the name and address of
each person who issued the warnings, the exact substance of each and every warning, the date
and time of each warning, and the name and address of all persons present when each of the
warnings were issued.
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
30. Please state whether the dog had ever displayed or exhibited any prior vicious
propensities or tendencies. If so, please state:
a. Each and every prior incident when the dog displayed any vicious
propensities or tendencies;
b. All general knowledge which the defendants possessed regarding the dog's
prior vicious propensities or tendencies.
ANSWER:
31. State whether the dog had ever attacked, mauled, bitten, chased or growled at any
other person or in any other way displayed any vicious propensities or tendencies toward any
other person. If so, please state each and every prior occasion when the dog displayed such
propensities or tendencies.
ANSWER:
32. Please state the following regarding the dog:
a. Type (breed);
b. Height;
c. Weight;
d. Color;
e. Age;
#1182517
#1479418
f. Name.
ANSWER:
33. Please state whether the defendants were aware of or ever became aware prior to
the date of the incident that the dog ever exhibited or displayed any vicious propensities or
tendencies or had ever attacked, mauled, bitten, chased or growled at any other person, including
children. If so, please state:
a. Each and every prior incident when the dog displayed any vicious
propensities or tendencies;
b. All general knowledge which the defendants possessed regarding the dog's
prior vicious propensities or tendencies.
ANSWER:
34. Do the defendants or defendants’ agents, servants, employees or representatives
have any photographs or video of the dog which bit the plaintiff? If so, please attach
reproductions of the photographs to the answers to these interrogatories. (Plaintiff will bear the
costs of reproduction of any such photographs).
ANSWER:
#1182517
#1479418
35. Attach hereto any and all written documents between defendants and any housing
agencies, police, or other entities regarding the incident.
ANSWER:
36. Attach hereto the complete investigation of defendants’ insurance carrier’s file
with the exception of those portions which are not discoverable.
ANSWER:
#1480567
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
A and B, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs,
v.
X and Y, husband and wife; X, individually; Z
BOROUGH; and, Z BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION
Case No.
COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, A and B, husband and wife, by and through their
attorneys, and file the within Complaint in a Civil Action and in support thereof aver the
following:
1. Plaintiffs, A and B, husband and wife, are adult individuals and residents of the
County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a current residence located at
123 Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, A and B, were legally married and resided
together as husband and wife.
3. Defendants, X and Y, husband and wife, are adult individuals and residents of the
County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 456
Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 12345.
4. Defendant, X, is an adult individual and a resident of the County of Allegheny
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 456 Your Street, Anytown,
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 12345.
#1480567
5. Defendant, Z, is a governmental agency and is a borough organized under the
laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has its municipal offices located at
789 Main Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
6. Defendant, Z Police Department, is a governmental agency and is a borough
police department owned and operated by Defendant, Z, and has its offices located at 123 Main
Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
7. Defendant, Z, and Defendant, Z Police Department, are local governmental
entities subject to liability in this matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).
8. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police
Department, either individually and/or jointly owned a certain Dutch and/or German Shepherd
dog, which dog was a police dog used within the K-9 unit of the Z Police Department.
9. Based on the foregoing allegations, at all times material hereto, Defendants, Z,
and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, was/were the “owners” of said Dutch and/or German
Shepherd dog, as that term is defined by the Pennsylvania Dog Law and specifically 3 P.S. §
459-102 and were subject to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Dog Law as to said Dutch
and/or German Shepherd dog.
10. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X,
was employed by Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, as a police officer
within the K-9 unit of the Z Police Department.
11. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch
and/or German Shepherd police dog was assigned to Defendant, X, in conjunction with his
official police duties as a K-9 officer.
#1480567
12. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X,
had as part of his job duty and/or responsibility the training of said Dutch and/or German
Shepherd dog for use as a police dog and the continued training of said Dutch and/or German
Shepherd dog for continued use as a police dog.
13. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X,
as part of his job duties and/or responsibilities pursuant to his employment with Defendant, Z,
and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, was responsible for the care, custody, control, and
possession of said police dog at all times.
14. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X,
was acting in the scope of his duties with Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department,
as the trainer, caretaker, and custodian of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog.
15. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z,
and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, is/are liable for the careless and/or negligent acts and/or
omissions of Defendant, X, in the performance of his official police duties as the individual who
is responsible for the care, custody, control, and possession of said Dutch and/or German
Shepherd police dog pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).
16. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, were the keepers of said Dutch
and/or German Shepherd dog and said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog resided with
Defendants, X and Y, and was permitted to enter and remain on or about Defendants’ premises
and residence with Defendants’ knowledge, permission, and consent.
17. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, had exclusive possession and
control of and over said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog and were responsible for the care,
custody, control, and restraint of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.
#1480567
18. Based on the foregoing allegations, at all times material hereto, Defendants, X
and Y, were the “owners” of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, as that term is defined by
3 P.S. § 459-102 and were subject to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Dog Law as to said
Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.
19. The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about March 28, 2011 at or
about 11:00 a.m. at or on Any Street near the intersection of Any Street and Your Street,
Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.
20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, was a pedestrian on Any Street and was
walking his dog in the vicinity of Defendants’ residence, which is located at or near the
intersection of Any Street and Your Street.
21. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, knowingly caused, allowed,
and/or permitted the above described Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog to be on Defendants’
premises without a leash, chain, or any other type of restraint preventing said dog from exiting
Defendants’ premises.
22. The above-described actions of Defendants, X and Y, constituted a violation of 3
P.S. § 459-305 in that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog was not confined within
Defendants’ premises or secured by means of a collar or chain so that it could not stray beyond
Defendants’ premises.
23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, observed said dog on Defendants’
premises without a leash, chain, or any other type of restraint, and Plaintiff, A, started to turn
around to walk away from Defendants’ residence and premises as a result of seeing said dog
loose on Defendants’ premises.
#1480567
24. At all times material hereto, as Plaintiff, A, was walking on Any Street and was
attempting to turn to walk away from Defendants’ premises, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd
dog ran over and off Defendants’ premises, onto Any Street, in a menacing and aggressive
manner, toward Plaintiff, A, at a high rate of speed.
25. At all times material hereto, as Plaintiff, A, was attempting to walk away from
Defendants’ premises, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog ran into the left leg of Plaintiff,
A, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground, and further causing Plaintiff to suffer and sustain
serious and possibly permanent injuries, as described more fully herein.
26. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X,
uttered a verbal command to said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog in an attempt to
stop the dog in its pursuit of Plaintiff, A; however, said command was ineffective in stopping the
dog, which continued to pursue Plaintiff, A, in the manner described herein.
27. It is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog
was pursuing either Plaintiff, A, directly, in a menacing and aggressive manner and/or was
pursuing the dog of Plaintiff, A, and ran into Plaintiff during that pursuit.
28. It is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog
had a history and/or a propensity of pursuing humans and/or domestic animals without
provocation.
29. It is further believed and therefore averred that as a police dog, said Dutch and/or
German Shepherd dog was specifically trained to pursue human beings and that Defendants, X,
Z, and/or Z Police Department had actual knowledge of this fact.
#1480567
30. The incident described herein constitutes an attack, as that term is defined by 3
P.S. § 459-102, in that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog deliberately pursued Plaintiff, A,
and/or deliberately pursued the dog of Plaintiff, A.
31. Defendants, Z, and/or Z Police Department, and Defendants, X and Y, as both the
owners and the keepers of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, harbored said dog in
violation of 3 P.S. § 459-502-A, as said dog inflicted severe injury on Plaintiff, A, without
provocation; attacked Plaintiff, A, without provocation; and had either a propensity and/or
history of attacking human beings and/or domestic animals without provocation.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence,
carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, A, was caused to
suffer and sustain the following serious and severe injuries, some or all of which may be
permanent in nature:
a. Left tibial plateau fracture requiring surgical intervention consisting of
open reduction and internal fixation;
b. Permanent surgical scarring and disfigurement of the left lower extremity;
c. Disability of the left lower extremity;
d. Pain of the left lower extremity;
e. Weakness of the left lower extremity;
f. Sprain and strain of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, veins, vessels, skin,
soft tissues, and other structures of the left lower extremity;
g. Other injuries the full nature and extent of which are not currently known.
33. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence,
carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, A, has suffered the
following damages:
#1480567
a. He has been and will be required to expend large sums of money for
surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical
appliances, medications, therapies, and the services of nurses, with his past
medical expenses being in excess of $1,500.00;
b. He has suffered and will continue to suffer great physical and mental pain,
discomfort, distress, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish,
humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures;
c. He has suffered permanent impairment to his left leg;
d. His general health, strength, and vitality have been impaired;
e. He has been and will be deprived of his earnings;
f. His earning power has been reduced and permanently impaired; and,
g. He has been permanently scarred and disfigured.
34. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence,
carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, B, has suffered the
following damages:
a. She has suffered a loss of consortium;
b. She has been deprived of the services, society, and comfort of her
husband, Plaintiff, A; and,
c. She has incurred debt and expenses as a result of the injuries inflicted
upon her husband, Plaintiff, A.
COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE
A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs
v.
X and Y, husband and wife, Defendants
35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the
same were set forth at length herein.
#1480567
36. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the
direct and proximate result of all Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence,
carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendants, X and Y,
husband and wife, specifically, as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash the aforementioned
Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog;
b. In failing to take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendants’
premises;
c. In failing to take any steps or measures to prevent the escape of said dog
from Defendants’ premises;
d. In failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the actions of said dog in a safe
and proper manner;
e. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendants knew or
should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a
history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic
animals;
f. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to chase, pursue, and
come into contact with Plaintiff, A, when Defendants knew or should have
known said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing
humans and/or domestic animals;
g. In failing to properly control said dog so it would not leave Defendants’
property to cause harm to another human being;
h. In failing to restrict, restrain, or prohibit said dog from coming into contact
with and causing harm to a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
i. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with
and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A; and,
j. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession
of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against
Defendants, X and Y, in an amount in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Allegheny
#1480567
County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well as any such other relief that the
Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE
A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs
v.
X, Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS
37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the
same were set forth at length herein.
38. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the
direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence,
carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendant, X, specifically,
as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash the aforementioned
Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog;
b. In failing to take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendant’s
premises;
c. In failing to enforce proper police procedures or to ensure that proper
police procedures were followed that a K-9 officer who was charged with
possession and control of a police dog kept said dog under control and
restraint at all times;
d. In failing to take any steps or measures to prevent the escape of said dog
from Defendant’s premises;
e. In failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the actions of said dog in a safe
and proper manner;
f. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant knew or
should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a
history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic
animals;
#1480567
g. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to chase, pursue, and
come into contact with Plaintiff, A, when Defendant knew or should have
known said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing
humans and/or domestic animals;
h. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant had actual
knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits
of human beings;
i. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash said dog and/or take any
steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendant’s premises when
Defendant had actual knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog
to engage in pursuits of human beings;
j. In failing to restrict, restrain, or prohibit said dog from coming into contact
with and causing harm to a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
k. In failing to effectively command said dog in order to stop the dog from
pursuing Plaintiff;
l. In failing to control said dog;
m. In failing to train and/or reinforce any training such that Defendant was
capable of maintaining control over said dog at all times and in all
situations;
n. In exposing the general public, including Plaintiff, A, to a police dog
trained to engage in the pursuit of human beings when said dog was not
adequately trained and/or reinforced in its training such that said dog
would not constitute a danger to the general public;
o. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with
and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
p. In failing to properly train said dog to ensure it would obey all verbal
commands;
q. In failing to ensure that said dog would obey all verbal commands before
Defendant(s) allowed said dog to be placed in the custody and control of
an officer; and,
r. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession
of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A.
#1480567
39. Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, is/are liable for the
negligent acts of its employee, Defendant X, regarding the care, custody, and control of the
police dog in question pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against
Defendants, X; Z; and, Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, in an amount in excess of the mandatory
Arbitration Limits of Allegheny County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well
as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENCE
A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs
v.
Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS
40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the
same were set forth at length herein.
41. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the
direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence,
carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendants, Z and Z
POLICE DEPARTMENT, specifically, as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to enforce proper police procedures or to ensure that proper
police procedures were followed that a K-9 officer who was charged with
possession and control of a police dog kept said dog under control and
restraint at all times;
b. In failing to properly train its employees, including Defendant, X,
regarding the care, custody, and control of police dogs;
c. In failing to set, create, enforce, disseminate, and/or publish guidelines,
protocol, and/or procedures regarding the care, custody, and control of off
duty police dogs;
#1480567
d. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant knew or
should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a
history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic
animals;
e. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant had actual
knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits
of human beings;
f. In failing to train and/or reinforce any training such that Defendant was
capable of maintaining control over said dog at all times and in all
situations;
g. In exposing the general public, including Plaintiff, A, to a police dog
trained to engage in the pursuit of human beings when said dog was not
adequately trained and/or reinforced in its training such that said dog
would not constitute a danger to the general public;
h. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with
and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A;
i. In failing to properly train said dog to ensure it would obey all verbal
commands;
j. In failing to ensure that said dog would obey all verbal commands before
Defendant(s) allowed said dog to be placed in the custody and control of
an officer; and,
k. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession
of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against
Defendants, Z; and, Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, in an amount in excess of the mandatory
Arbitration Limits of Allegheny County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well
as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
#1480496
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
A, parent and natural guardian of B, a minor,
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
ORPHANS COURT DIVISION
No.
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT OF A MINOR’S CLAIM
AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, A, parent and natural guardian of your minor
Petitioner, B, by and through her attorneys, EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and files
the following Petition for Approval of Settlement of a Minor’s Claim, and in support thereof aver
as follows:
1. Petitioner, A, is the parent and natural guardian of minor Petitioner, B. The
minor’s date of birth is November 9, 2005, being 5 years of age at the time of subject accident,
and 7 currently. Petitioners reside together at 123 Street Drive, Any City, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania 12345.
2. On October 30, 2011, the minor Petitioner was bitten by a male yellow Labrador
retriever or mixed breed dog named “Dog,” owned by X while on business property owned by
the X, located at 456 Any Road, Any City, Fayette County, Pennsylvania 12345.
3. The minor Petitioner suffered a dog bite to his face, and was taken by private
vehicle to Uniontown Hospital for evaluation. At Uniontown Hospital, Minor Petitioner
received seven (7) sutures to the laceration on his left cheek. The sutures were removed by
Minor Petitioner’s primary care physician on November 4, 2011. True and correct copies of
selected Uniontown Hospital records and the November 4, 2011 Fayette Medical Associates
office note are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A.” Additionally, photographs of Minor
#1480496
Petitioner taken on the date of the incident are attached as Exhibit “B” and photographs of the
Minor Petitioner taken on October 8, 2012 are attached as Exhibit “C”.
4. Petitioner, A, retained the law firm of XYZ, to represent the interests of the minor
Petitioner, B, relative to the accident of October 30, 2011. Petitioner entered into a fee
arrangement in the nature of a contingent fee, plus costs, a true and correct copy of which is
attached as Exhibit “D”.
5. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (hereinafter “Department”) has
paid Minor Petitioner’s incident-related medical bills, and is claiming a lien in the amount of
Three Hundred Nineteen and 71/100 Dollars ($319.71). A true and correct copy of the
Department’s Statement of Claim Summary is attached as Exhibit “E”.
6. The owner of the dog, X, is insured under a policy issued by Travelers Home and
Marine Insurance Company (hereinafter “Travelers”) which provides for liability insurance
coverage.
7. Negotiations were entered into with Travelers, through its adjusters, and after
numerous letters, telephone conversations, and an in-person settlement conference, Travelers
has offered One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00)
to settle Minor Petitioner’s liability claim against X and Travelers. Therefore, settlement was
tentatively, pending this Honorable Court’s approval, negotiated whereby the minor Petitioner,
B, was to receive One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars
($100,320.00) as full and final settlement of his liability claim against X and Travelers relative
to the incident.
#1480496
8. Of the One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars
($100,320.00), Petitioners are requesting that Sixty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($60,000.00)
be used to fund an annuity for the benefit of B. Said annuity shall provide guaranteed “periodic
payments” beginning on the Minor’s eighteenth birthday, as follows:
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2023;
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2024;
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2025;
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2026; and,
$36,036.56 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2030.
The documentation applicable to the proposed structure/annuity is attached as Exhibit “F”.
9. Following its retention, the law firm of XYZ performed work on the case
including but not limited to the following:
a. Met with your Petitioners on multiple occasions;
b. Conducted necessary investigation of the incident;
c. Photographed Minor Petitioner on multiple occasions;
d. Obtained the medical records of Minor Petitioner’s medical treatment;
e. Retained an expert medical witness to discuss the residual psychological problems
which Minor would be expected to encounter as a result of this incident;
f. Documented Minor Petitioner’s injuries to the Insurers;
g. Contacted the medical providers to ensure that medical bills were billed properly
and paid;
h. Negotiated with Travelers and secured the offer detailed herein;
i. Worked with a structured settlement company to obtain the proposed
annuity/structure;
j. Contacted the medical providers to determine whether there were any outstanding
bills;
#1480496
k. Contacted and coordinated repayment of the Department’s lien; and,
l. Prepared the within Petition for approval of the settlement.
10. The attorneys’ fee charged by XYZ, is 25% of the total settlement of One
Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), which totals
Twenty Five Thousand Eighty and 00/100 Dollars ($25,080.00). Additionally, costs in the case
for investigations, medical records and bills, and other expenses total Four Thousand Seven
Hundred Fifty Nine and 54/100 Dollars ($4,759.54) for which the firm of SYZ respectfully
requests to be reimbursed. A copy of the itemization of costs is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.
11. As stated above, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare made medical
payments totaling Three Hundred Nineteen and 71/100 Dollars ($319.71) on Minor Petitioner’s
behalf, and is seeking subrogation. The Department has agreed to accept Two Hundred Twenty
Four and 81/100 Dollars ($224.81) as payment in full of its lien in this matter. A copy of
correspondence from the Department is attached hereto as Exhibit “H”.
12. Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to approve the settlement of
One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), and order
distribution of the settlement funds as follows:
a. The sum of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,080.00) shall
be paid to XYZ, representing its 25% fee;
b. The sum of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and 54/100 Dollars
($4,759.54) shall be paid to XYZ, representing costs incurred in pursuing
the claim on behalf of the Minor Plaintiff;
c. The sum of Two Hundred Twenty Four and 81/100 Dollars ($224.81)
shall be paid to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to satisfy
its lien in this matter;
#1480496
d. The sum of Sixty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($60,000.00) of the
overall settlement of this matter shall be used to fund an annuity for the
benefit of B. Said annuity shall provide guaranteed “periodic payments”
beginning on the Minor’s eighteenth birthday, as follows:
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2023;
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2024;
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2025;
$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2026; and,
$36,036.56 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2030.
e. The sum of Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Five and 65/100 Dollars
($10,255.65) representing the balance from the settlement monies received
from Travelers, shall be deposited directly by the undersigned counsel into
a federally insured bank of the Petitioners’ choosing and placed in the
minor’s own name with the express restriction that no withdrawals shall
be made until the minor achieves the age of 18, unless this Court orders
otherwise.
13. A Proof of Deposit shall be filed with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court within sixty
(60) days of the date of the Order entered herein.
14. Proof of funding of the annuity shall be filed with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court
within sixty (60) days of the date of the Order entered herein.
15. It is requested that Petitioner, A, be authorized to execute any necessary
documents on behalf of B, a minor, to settle all claims relative to the injuries and damages
arising out of the incident described herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, A, respectfully request this Honorable Court approve total
settlement of the liability claim of B, a minor for the sum of One Hundred Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00) and order distribution as set forth above.
#1479358
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
A, individually, and as parent and natural
guardian of B, a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
X and Y, individually and as husband and
wife; and Z,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION
Case No.
SAMPLE COMPLAINT
Filed on behalf of: Plaintiff, A individually,
and as parent and natural guardian of B, a
minor
SAMPLE COMPLAINT – DOG OWNER & LANDLORD
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B,
a minor, by and through her attorneys, and sets forth the following Complaint in Civil Action
against Defendants, as follows:
1. Plaintiff, A, is an adult individual and the mother of minor-Plaintiff, B, with a
current residence at 123 Main Street, Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15601.
2. Minor-Plaintiff, B, is a minor individual with a date of birth of December 5, 2006,
who is currently six (6) years old, and who resides with her mother, Plaintiff, A, at 123 Main
Street, Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15601.
3. Defendants, X and Y, are adult individuals and residents of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the County of Westmoreland with a last known address of 456 Any Street,
Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
4. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants,
X and Y, were husband and wife and were legally married and resided together at 456 Any
Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
5. Defendant, Z, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the County of Westmoreland with a last known address of 789 Fake Avenue,
Blairsville, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15717.
6. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z,
owned, controlled, managed, and/or supervised the property and premises located at 456 Any
Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
7. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants,
X and Y, leased the property located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania 15627 from Defendant, Z
8. In the alternative, at all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred
that Defendant, Z, permitted Defendants, X and Y, to gratuitously reside on the premises located
at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
9. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z,
was a licensed veterinarian and the father of Defendant, Y.
10. The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about June 11, 2011, at or on
Defendants’ residence and premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania 15627.
11. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, either individually and/or
jointly as husband and wife, were the owners of an adult male Rottweiler dog known as “Dog,”
within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Dog Laws found at 3 P.S. § 459-101, et seq.
12. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z,
allowed, with his knowledge, consent, and permission, Defendants, X and Y, to keep the
aforementioned male Rottweiler dog on the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry,
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.
13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, and minor-Plaintiff, B, were social
guests at the residence and premises owned by Defendant, Z, and occupied and/or lease by
Defendants, X and Y, as described herein.
14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, was in the kitchen area of the within
described premises and minor-Plaintiff, B, was in the living/family room area of the within
described premises premises, with Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son, who was six (6) years of
age.
15. At all times material hereto, the within described Rottweiler dog, “Dog,” was in
the living/family room area of the within described premises, with minor-Plaintiff, B, and with
Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son.
16. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son was petting said
Rottweiler dog and subsequently instructed minor-Plaintiff, B, that it was her turn to pet said
dog.
17. At all times material hereto, minor-Plaintiff, B, was standing on the floor in front
of said Rottweiler dog and was interacting with said dog by petting and/or hugging said dog.
18. At all times material hereto, as minor-Plaintiff, B, was drawing away from said
dog after having pet and/or hugged said Rottweiler dog, said dog suddenly and without warning
or provocation lunged at minor-Plaintiff’s face, attacking minor-Plaintiff and biting and grasping
her by the face with his teeth/mouth, and shaking minor-Plaintiff by the face, causing minor-
Plaintiff to suffer multiple lacerations and puncture wounds to her face.
19. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, permitted said Rottweiler dog
to roam free without supervision when minor-Plaintiff, B, was visiting the home.
20. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, had actual knowledge that
said dog had dangerous, hazardous, and vicious propensities to attack and/or bite without
provocation and that said dog constituted a hazard to humans.
21. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, had actual knowledge that
said dog had previously bitten at least two (2) other individuals, including Defendant, X’s,
grandmother, and another adult individual by the name of “Man,” causing serious personal
injuries to both individuals.
22. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Z, permitted and allowed said dog to
remain on or about the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania 15627, while Defendant, Z, had actual knowledge that said dog had previously
viciously and violently attacked and bitten at least two (2) adult individuals.
23. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, never advised, warned,
and/or informed minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and vicious propensities of said
dog nor that the dog had the tendency to attack, bite, and/or pose a serious risk of harm to
children and other individuals.
24. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described dog attack, minor-
Plaintiff was caused to suffer and sustain serious, severe, and permanent personal injuries,
hereinafter more fully described.
25. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined negligence,
carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, minor-Plaintiff, B, suffered and
sustained the following serious and severe personal injuries, some or all of which may be
permanent:
a. Multiple lacerations, puncture wounds, and bite injuries to the nose, upper
lip, right cheek, and face;
b. Swelling and redness;
c. Permanent scarring and disfigurement;
d. Permanent discoloration of the skin of her face;
e. Pain of the nose, mouth, and face;
f. Emotional distress;
g. Anxiety; and,
h. Other serious and severe injuries the full nature and extent of which are
currently unknown.
26. As a further direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined
negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, minor-Plaintiff, B, has
been damaged as follows:
a. She has suffered and will continue to suffer from great physical and
mental pain, discomfort, distress, mental anguish, anxiety, inconvenience,
and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures;
b. She has been embarrassed and humiliated;
c. She has been permanently scarred and disfigured;
d. Her general health, strength, and vitality have been impaired;
e. Her earning power and capacity have been diminished and/or reduced;
and,
f. She will be required in the future, after achieving the age of majority, to
expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention,
hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines, and
services of doctors and nurses.
27. As a further direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined
negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, Plaintiff, A, has been
damaged as follows:
a. She has been and will be required in the future, until minor-Plaintiff
achieves the age of majority, to expend large sums of money for surgical
and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical
appliances, medicines, and services of doctors and nurses.
COUNT I
A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor v. X and Y, individually
and as husband and wife
28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 27, inclusive, of
this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.
29. The injuries and damages set forth herein were caused by and were a direct and
proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness
of Defendants, X and Y, generally as described herein, and specifically as set forth as follows:
a. In failing to properly restrain, house, cage, fence or leash said dog;
b. In failing to warn minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and
hazardous propensities of said dog and its vicious tendencies;
c. In failing to be diligent and vigilant in the supervising of the actions of
said dog in a constant and/or safe and proper manner;
d. In failing to protect the public in general and minor-Plaintiff in particular
from the vicious and dangerous propensities of said dog by allowing the
dog to roam free when Defendants knew or should have known of its
dangerous propensities;
e. In allowing and permitting said dog to be placed in, around, and/or near
minor-Plaintiff when they had actual or constructive notice of the fact that
the dog had dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities and would act
in an erratic behavior, especially around children;
f. In allowing and permitting said dog to be placed in, around, and/or near
minor-Plaintiff when Defendants had actual knowledge that the dog had
previously bitten two other individuals;
g. In allowing or permitting said dog to roam free without informing minor-
Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the potential harms and hazards that could
come from the dog in question;
h. In permitting an attractive nuisance to exist such that the dog was not
placed in a properly secured area, but instead was placed in close
proximity to minor-Plaintiff when Defendants knew or should have known
that minor-Plaintiff would be attracted to said dog and was, in fact,
encouraged to interact with said dog by Defendants’ minor son;
i. In allowing said dog to be in contact with minor-Plaintiff despite the
knowledge of the propensities of the dog to be dangerous and vicious and
to take any and all steps necessary to eliminate the dog’s presence from
the minor children;
j. In violating the local and state ordinances regarding restraint of animals
and/or licensing procedures pursuant thereto;
k. In violating the Pennsylvania dog laws, including, but not limited to, §§
459-502-A, 459-503-A, 459-504-A, 459-505-A, of Title 3 of the
Pennsylvania Statutes;
l. In causing, allowing or permitting the dog to come into contact with
minor-Plaintiff while said dog was not being supervised;
m. In failing to muzzle said dog at all times;
n. In knowingly harboring a dangerous dog
o. In failing to keep said dog isolated and/or away from minor-Plaintiff
despite the knowledge that the dog had vicious propensities and was
known to attack humans without warning and/or provocation; and,
p. In failing to take any steps or any actions to prevent said dog from coming
into contact with minor-Plaintiff at the time of the incident.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, A, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B, a
minor, demand that Judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants, in excess of the
mandatory Arbitration Limits of Westmoreland County, together with costs and interest.
A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED.
COUNT II
A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor v. Z
30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of
this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.
31. The injuries and damages set forth herein were caused by and were a direct and
proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness
of Defendant, Z, generally as described herein, and specifically as set forth as follows:
a. in permitting and/or allowing tenants, lessees, and/or occupants to house
and/or harbor dangerous dog, that being a Rottweiler in and on the
premises in question when he had knowledge, actual or constructive, that
said dog had dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities;
b. in failing to have the Rottweiler removed from the premises when he knew
or should have known of the vicious, hazardous and dangerous
propensities of the aforementioned Rottweiler;
c. in renting, leasing, and/or gratuitously lending a residential premises to
tenants when Defendant knew or should have known that said tenants
would house upon the premises a Rottweiler dog known to Defendant to
have dangerous and vicious propensities;
d. in failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the tenants to ensure that they
did not own pets with dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities; and,
e. In failing to warn minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and
hazardous propensities of said dog and its vicious tendencies.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, A, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B, a
minor, demand that Judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants, in excess of the
mandatory Arbitration Limits of Westmoreland County, together with costs and interest.
A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED.
1377041 #1414148
STATE DOG BITE/DOG LEASH LAWS
Alabama
Liability:
Liability of owner of dog for injuries to person bitten or injured while
upon property owned or controlled by owner, etc.
If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person
who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be,
the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so
bitten or injured, but such liability shall arise only when the person
so bitten or injured is upon property owned or controlled by the
owner of such dog at the time such bite or injury occurs or when
such person has been immediately prior to such time on such
property and has been pursued therefrom by such dog
When person deemed lawfully on property of owner of dog
For the purpose of this chapter a person shall be considered to be
lawfully upon the private property of the owner of such dog when
he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed
upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws of the United
States or the postal laws and regulations of the United States, when
reading meters, when delivering milk, when making repairs to any
public utility or service upon said premises or when on such
property upon the invitation, either expressed or implied, of the
owner or lessee of such property.
Mitigation of damages
The owner of such dog shall, however, be entitled to plead and
prove in mitigation of damages that he had no knowledge of any
circumstances indicating such dog to be or to have been vicious or
dangerous or mischievous, and, if he does so, he shall be liable
only to the extent of the actual expenses incurred by the person so
bitten or injured as a result of the bite or injury.
Source: Ala. Code § 3-6-1 (West)
Vicious and Dangerous Dogs:
§ 3-1-3. Liability of owner, etc., permitting vicious or dangerous
animal to be at liberty, etc., for injuries caused by same.
When any person owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of
any kind and, as a result of his careless management of the same or
his allowing the same to go at liberty, and another person, without
fault on his part, is injured thereby, such owner or keeper shall be
liable in damages for such injury.
1377041 #1414148
Rabid Dogs:
§ 3-1-2. Liability of owner, etc., for injuries caused by rabid dog.
The owner or person in charge of any dog, who knows that such
dog has been bitten by a rabid dog or has knowledge of such
facts that if followed up would disclose the facts that such dog
has been bitten by or exposed to a rabid dog, if such dog
becomes a rabid dog and bites any person, stock, hogs or cattle
shall be liable to twice the damages sustained by the person
injured, including appropriate medical treatment, such damages
to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
No updates to Bite Law
No dog shall be permitted except on leash within any wildlife
management area except per state rule; the owner of any dog at large
within any wildlife management area shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
Source: Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-305
No Updates to Leash Law
Alaska Update: add under Liability Statute
Dogs deemed vicious
Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a
human being is considered vicious. Any person may lawfully kill
any vicious or mad dog running at large.
Source: Alaska Stat. Ann. § 03.55.020 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Arizona Liability for dog bites
A. The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in
or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including
the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered
by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the
dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness.
B. Nothing in this section or in § 11-1020 shall permit the
bringing of an action for damages against any governmental
agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred
while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking
act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:
o (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the
employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's
1377041 #1414148
involvement in criminal activity.
o (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
o (3) In the execution of a warrant.
o (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.
C. Subsection B of this section shall not apply in any case where
the victim of the bite was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor
suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act that prompted
the use of the dog in the military or police work.
D. Subsection B of this section shall apply only where a
governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has
adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a
dog for the police or military work enumerated in subsection B of
this section.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1025 (West)
Arizona Leash Law:
No person in charge of any dog shall permit such dog in a public park or
upon any public school property unless the dog is physically restrained by
a leash, enclosed in a car, cage or similar enclosure or being exhibited or
trained at a recognized kennel club event, public school or park sponsored
event.
Source: A.R.S. § 11-1012
No updates to Leash Law
Arkansas Unlawful activities regarding animal bites
(a) It is unlawful for any person bitten, the family, treating
physician, or veterinarian that has knowledge of a person bitten by
a dog or cat or other animal to refuse to notify the health
authorities promptly.
(b) It is unlawful for the owner of the dog or cat or other animal to
sell, give away, transfer, transport to another area, or otherwise
dispose of the dog or cat or other animal that is known to have
bitten a person until it is released by the health authorities.
(c)(1) It is unlawful for the owner of the dog or cat or other animal
to refuse or fail to comply with the written or printed instructions
of the health authorities in any particular case.
o (2)(A) The written instructions shall be delivered in person
1377041 #1414148
by health authorities or their authorized agent.
(B) If instructions cannot be delivered in person,
they shall be mailed by regular mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed to the owner of the dog or
cat or other animal.
(C) The affidavit or testimony of the health
authorities or their authorized agent, who delivered
or mailed such instructions, shall be prima facie
evidence of the receipt of the instructions by the
owner of the dog or cat or other animal.
Source: Ark. Code Ann. § 20-19-306 (West)
Updates to Law:
Based on the statute above, I would update our website under “Dangerous
Dog Statute” to say: Although Arkansas does not have a dangerous dog
statute, a dog owner whose dog bites another person must notify health
authorities promptly.
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
California Dog bites; liability of owner; military or police work excluded;
limitations
(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any
person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully
in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's
knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the
private property of such owner within the meaning of this section
when he is on such property in the performance of any duty
imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal
regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property
upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.
(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action
pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using
a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while
the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or
provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the
following:
o (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the
employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's
involvement in criminal activity.
1377041 #1414148
o (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.
o (3) In the execution of a warrant.
o (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of
the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor
suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that
prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.
(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency
using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy
on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or
military work enumerated in subdivision (b).
Source: Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 3342 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Colorado
Civil actions against dog owners
(2) A person or a personal representative of a person who suffers
serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while
lawfully on public or private property shall be entitled to bring a
civil action to recover economic damages against the dog owner
regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog
or the dog owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog's
viciousness or dangerous propensities.
(3) In any case described in subsection (2) of this section in which
it is alleged and proved that the dog owner had knowledge or
notice of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities, the
court, upon a motion made by the victim or the personal
representative of the victim, may enter an order that the dog be
euthanized by a licensed veterinarian or licensed shelter at the
expense of the dog owner.
(4) For purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be
lawfully on public or private property if he or she is in the
performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by local, state, or
federal laws or regulations or if he or she is on property upon
express or implied invitation of the owner of the property or is on
his or her own property.
(5) A dog owner shall not be liable to a person who suffers bodily
injury, serious bodily injury, or death from being bitten by the dog:
o (a) While the person is unlawfully on public or private
1377041 #1414148
property;
o (b) While the person is on property of the dog owner and
the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one
or more posted signs stating “no trespassing” or “beware of
dog”;
o (c) While the dog is being used by a peace officer or
military personnel in the performance of peace officer or
military personnel duties;
o (d) As a result of the person knowingly provoking the dog;
o (e) If the person is a veterinary health care worker, dog
groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog
handler, trainer, or dog show judge acting in the
performance of his or her respective duties; or
o (f) While the dog is working as a hunting dog, herding dog,
farm or ranch dog, or predator control dog on the property
of or under the control of the dog's owner.
No Updates to Bite/Dangerous Dog Laws
Source: Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-124 (West)
Colorado Leash Law:
It is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other
mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the
county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow
it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and
impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal found
running at large and dispose of such animal in accordance with local
program policy.
Source: C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610
No updates to Leash Laws
Connecticut
Damage to person or property
If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any
person, the owner or keeper, or, if the owner or keeper is a minor,
the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such
damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the
body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was
sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing,
tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an
action under this section is brought, was under seven years of age
1377041 #1414148
at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such
minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing,
tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof
shall be upon the defendant in such action.
Source: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 22-357 (West)
No updates to Bite Law
It is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other
mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the
county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow
it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and
impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal found
running at large and dispose of such animal in accordance with local
program policy.
Source: C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610
No Updates to Leash Law
Delaware
Liability of dog owner for damages
The owner of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death or
loss to person or property that is caused by such dog, unless the
injury, death or loss was caused to the body or property of a person
who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a
trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, or
was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against
any person, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog.
No Updates to Bite Law
Dogs running at large
No dog shall be permitted to run at large at any time, unless the
dog is accompanied by the owner or custodian and under the
owner's or custodian's reasonable control and is licensed in
accordance with county ordinances, except that a person who is an
occupant of a farm or property containing 20 acres or more on
which there are no more than 3 resident dwelling units may permit
a dog to run at large between October 1 and the last day of
February, next following. Any owner or custodian who violates
this subsection shall be fined not less than $25 or more than $50.
For each subsequent offense occurring within 12 months of a prior
1377041 #1414148
offense, the person shall be fined not less than $50 or more than
$100. The minimum fine for a subsequent offense shall not be
subject to suspension. For the purposes of this section, the term
“dog” shall mean any dog or dog hybrid. Allowing a dog to run at
large is a violation.
(b) The owner or custodian of every dog shall, at all times between
the hours of sunset and sunrise of each day, keep such dog either:
o (1) Confined within an enclosure from which it cannot
escape; or
o (2) Firmly secured by means of a collar or chain or other
device so that it cannot stray from the premises on which it
is secured; or
o (3) Under the reasonable control of some person or when
engaged in lawful hunting accompanied by the owner or
custodian.
(c) Whoever, being the owner, custodian, possessor or harborer of
any female dog, allows such dog to run or remain at large in this
State while in heat shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than
$100. For each subsequent offense occurring within 12 months of
a prior offense, the person shall be fined not less than $100 or
more than $200. The minimum fine for a subsequent offense shall
not be subject to suspension. Allowing a female dog to run at large
while in heat is a violation.
(d) Whoever, being the owner, custodian, possessor or harborer of
any dog that while running at large and without provocation, bites
a person, shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500. For
each subsequent offense involving the same dog, such owner,
custodian, possessor or harborer shall be fined not less than $750
or more than $1,500. The minimum fines provided for in this
subsection, $100 for the first offense and $750 for each subsequent
offense, shall not be subject to suspension.
(e) Upon conviction in any court of an offense under subsection
(d) of this section, the court shall cause a report to be forwarded to
the county in which the offense occurred or to the dog control
authority in each county as designated by the county. Said report
shall contain the name of the defendant, the name of the dog, the
license number of the dog, the date of the offense and the date of
conviction. The county shall maintain these reports for a period of
3 years.
No updates to Leash Law
1377041 #1414148
Source: Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, § 908 (West), Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, § 913
(West)
District Of
Columbia
Dangerous dog and potentially dangerous dog owner responsibilities
It shall be unlawful to:
Keep a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog without a valid
certificate of registration issued under § 8-1904;
(2) Permit a potentially dangerous dog to be outside a proper
enclosure unless the potentially dangerous dog is under the control
of a responsible person and restrained by a chain or leash, not
exceeding 4 feet in length;
(3) Fail to maintain a dangerous dog exclusively on the owner's
property except for medical treatment or examination. When
removed from the owner's property for medical treatment or
examination, the dangerous dog shall be caged or under the control
of a responsible person and muzzled and restrained with a chain or
leash, not exceeding 4 feet in length. The muzzle shall be made in
a manner that will not cause injury to the dangerous dog or
interfere with its vision or respiration, but shall prevent it from
biting any human being or animal;
(4) Fail to notify the Mayor within 24 hours if a potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog is on the loose, is unconfined, has
attacked another domestic animal, has attacked a human being, has
died, has been sold, or has been given away. If the potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog has been sold or given away, the
owner shall also provide the Mayor with the name, address, and
telephone number of the new owner of the potentially dangerous
or dangerous dog;
(5) Fail to surrender a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog to
the Mayor for safe confinement pending disposition of the case
when there is a reason to believe that the potentially dangerous or
dangerous dog poses a threat to public safety;
(6) Fail to comply with any special security or care requirements
for a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog the Mayor may
establish pursuant to § 8-1903; or
(7) Remove a dangerous dog from the District without written
permission from the Mayor
Source: D.C. Code § 8-1905 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
1377041 #1414148
§ 8-1808. Prohibited conduct.
(e) No dog shall be permitted on any school ground when school is in
session or on any public recreation area, other than a dog park, unless the
dog is leashed.
No Updates to Leash Law
Florida
Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons bitten
The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is
on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place,
including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for
damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former
viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such
viciousness. 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. A person is
lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning
of this act when the person is on such property in the performance
of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by
the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the
person is on such property upon invitation, expressed or implied,
of the owner. However, the owner is not liable, except as to a
person under the age of 6, or unless the damages are proximately
caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner, 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.” The remedy provided by this section is in addition to
and cumulative with any other remedy provided by statute or
common law.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 767.04 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (still no state-wide statute)
Georgia
Vicious animals, liability for injuries caused by
A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any
kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal
1377041 #1414148
to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not
provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the
person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be
sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a
leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated
government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence
not at heel or on a leash. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to
domesticated fowl including roosters with spurs. The foregoing
sentence shall not apply to domesticated livestock.
No Updates
Source: Ga. Code Ann. § 51-2-7 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (still no state-wide statute)
Hawaii
Human bitten by dog; duty of dog owners; action against owner
(a) The owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have
the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent
the recurrence of such incident.
(b) Whenever a dog has bitten a human being on at least two
separate occasions for which none of the exceptions specified in
section 663-9.1 apply, any person may bring an action against the
owner of the dog in the district court of the judicial circuit in
which the owner resides, to determine whether conditions of the
treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances
existing at the time of the bites have been changed so as to remove
the danger to other persons presented by such animal. The court,
after hearing, may make any order it deems appropriate to prevent
the recurrence of such an incident, including but not limited to the
removal of the animal from the area or its destruction by its owner.
In making its decision, the court may consider:
o (1) The vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal;
o (2) The ability of the owner to adequately confine or
remove the animal; and
o (3) The necessity of any destruction of an animal in light of
the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
This section shall not preclude any existing common law
remedies.
(c) Each county may enact and enforce ordinances regulating
persons who own, harbor, or keep any dog that has bitten,
1377041 #1414148
injured, or maimed a person. No ordinance enacted under this
subsection shall be held invalid on the ground that it covers
any subject or matter embraced within any statute or rule of the
State; provided that the ordinance shall not affect the civil
liability of a person owning, harboring, or keeping the dog.
Upon enactment of an ordinance, whether enacted on, before,
or after June 30, 2001, the ordinance shall have full force and
effect; provided that the ordinance is consistent with this
section.
Liability of animal owners
The owner or harborer of an animal, if the animal proximately
causes either personal or property damage to any person, shall
be liable in damages to the person injured regardless of the
animal owner's or harborer's lack of scienter of the vicious or
dangerous propensities of the animal.
(b) The owner or harborer of an animal which is known by its
species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious, if the
animal proximately causes either personal or property damage
to any person, shall be absolutely liable for such damage.
Source: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 142-75 (Lexis), Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 (Lexis)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates Leash Law (no state-wide statute)
Idaho
Dogs running at large—Vicious dogs—Penalty
(1) Any person, who, after complaint has been made by any person
to the sheriff, who shall serve a copy of said notice upon such
person complained of, willfully or negligently permits any dog
owned or possessed or harbored by him to be, or run, at large
without a competent and responsible attendant or master, within
the limits of any city, town, or village or in the vicinity of any
farm, pasture, ranch, dwelling house, or cultivated lands of
another, or who willfully or negligently fails, neglects or refuses to
keep any such dog securely confined within the limits of his own
premises when not under the immediate care and control of a
competent and responsible attendant or master, shall be guilty of
an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho
Code.
(2) Any dog which, when not physically provoked, physically
1377041 #1414148
attacks, wounds, bites or otherwise injures any person who is not
trespassing, is vicious. It shall be unlawful for the owner or for the
owner of premises on which a vicious dog is present to harbor a
vicious dog outside a secure enclosure. A secure enclosure is one
from which the animal cannot escape and for which exit and entry
is controlled by the owner of the premises or owner of the animal.
Any vicious dog removed from the secure enclosure must be
restrained by a chain sufficient to control the vicious dog. Persons
guilty of a violation of this subsection, and in addition to any
liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor. For a second or subsequent violation of
this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety,
order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct
the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog.
Source: Idaho Code Ann. § 25-2805 (West)
No Updates
No Updates to Leash Law (still no state-wide statute)
Illinois
5/16. Animal attacks or injuries
§ 16. Animal attacks or injuries. 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 to such person for the full amount of the
injury proximately caused thereby.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: IL ST CH 510 § 5/16
5/15.2. Dangerous dogs; leash
§ 15.2. Dangerous dogs; leash. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly
or recklessly permit any dangerous dog to leave the premises of its owner
when not under control by leash or other recognized control methods.
No Update to Leash Law
Indiana
Liability of owner for unprovoked dog bites
Sec. 3. (a) If a dog, without provocation, bites a person:
1377041 #1414148
(1) who is acting peaceably; and
(2) who is in a location where the person may be required to be in
order to discharge a duty imposed upon the person by:
o (A) the laws of Indiana;
o (B) the laws of the United States; or
o (C) the postal regulations of the United States;
the owner of the dog is liable for all damages suffered by the person
bitten.
(b) The owner of a dog described in subsection (a) is liable for
damages even if:
o (1) the dog has not previously behaved in a vicious
manner; or
o (2) the owner has no knowledge of prior vicious behavior
by the dog.
Source: Ind. Code Ann. § 15-20-1-3 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No updates to Leash Law (no state-wide statute)
Iowa
Liability for damages
The owner of a dog shall be liable to an injured party for all
damages done by the dog, when the dog is caught in the action of
worrying, maiming, or killing a domestic animal, or the dog is
attacking or attempting to bite a person, except when the party
damaged is doing an unlawful act, directly contributing to the
injury. This section does not apply to damage done by a dog
affected with hydrophobia unless the owner of the dog had
reasonable grounds to know that the dog was afflicted with
hydrophobia and by reasonable effort might have prevented the
injury.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Iowa Code Ann. § 351.28 (West)
A dog shall be apprehended and impounded by a local board of health or
law enforcement official if the dog is running at large and the dog is not
wearing a valid rabies vaccination tag or a rabies vaccination certificate is
not presented to the local board of health or law enforcement official
Source: I. C. A. § 351.37
1377041 #1414148
No Updates to Leash Law
Kansas
No Updates to Bite Law (no statewide statute)
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Kentucky
Authority to kill or seize dog; return by court to owner of vicious dog;
liability for damage; proceeding by person attacked by dog;
disposition of dog after seizure; powers of animal control officer;
vicious dog not to run at large
(1)Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is
observed attacking any person.
(2) Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill
any dog trespassing on that owner's property and observed in the
act of pursuing or wounding his livestock.
(3) Any dog determined to be vicious by a court and allowed to be
returned to an owner shall be confined in a locked enclosure at
least seven (7) feet high or a locked kennel run with a secured top.
The dog may leave the enclosure only to visit the veterinarian or to
be turned in to an animal shelter. The dog shall be muzzled if
leaving the enclosure for either of these purposes.
(4) Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a
person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that
damage.
(5) (a) Any person who has been attacked by a dog, or anyone
acting on behalf of that person, may make a complaint before the
district court, charging the owner or keeper of the dog with
harboring a vicious dog. A copy of the complaint shall be served
upon the person so charged in the same manner and subject to the
laws regulating the service of summons in civil actions directing
him to appear for a hearing of the complaint at a time fixed in the
complaint. If the person fails to appear at the time fixed, or if upon
a hearing of the parties and their witnesses, the court finds the
person so charged is the owner or keeper of the dog in question,
and that the dog has viciously and without cause, attacked a human
being when off the premises of the owner or keeper, the person
shall be subject to the penalties set forth in KRS 258.990(3)(b),
and the court shall further order the owner or keeper to keep the
dog securely confined as provided by subsection (3) of this
1377041 #1414148
section, or the court may order the dog to be destroyed.
o (b) The animal control officer shall act as an officer of the
court for the enforcement of any orders of the court in his
jurisdiction pertaining to this subsection.
(6) For his services in the proceedings, a peace officer shall be
entitled to the same fees to which he is entitled for performing
similar services in civil cases. In all proceedings under this section,
the court shall place the costs upon either party as it may
determine.
(7) It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any vicious dog,
after receiving an order under subsection (5) of this section, to
permit the dog to run at large, or to appear in public except as
provided in subsection (3) of this section. Any vicious dog found
running at large may be killed by any animal control officer or
peace officer without liability for damages for the killing.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 258.235 (West)
Any peace officer or animal control officer may seize or destroy any dog
found running at large between the hours of sunset and sunrise and
unaccompanied and not under the control of its owner or handler
KRS § 258.265
No Updates to Leash Law
Louisiana
Art. 2321. Damage caused by animals
The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by
the animal. However, he is answerable for the damage only upon a
showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should
have known that his animal's behavior would cause damage, that
the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of
reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable
care. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages
for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the
owner could have prevented and which did not result from the
injured person's provocation of the dog. Nothing in this Article
shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.
1377041 #1414148
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, La. Stat. Ann. § 3:2771
§ 2771. Dogs not to run at large
No person shall suffer or permit any dog in his possession, or kept by him
about his premises, to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass
upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.
No Updates to Leash Law
Maine
§ 3961. Reimbursement for damage done by animals
Injuries and damages by animal. When an animal damages a
person or that person's property due to negligence of the animal's
owner or keeper, the owner or keeper of that animal is liable in a
civil action to the person injured for the amount of damage done if
the damage was not occasioned through the fault of the person
injured.
2. Injuries by dog. Notwithstanding subsection 1, when a dog
injures a person who is not on the owner's or keeper's premises at
the time of the injury, the owner or keeper of the dog is liable in a
civil action to the person injured for the amount of the damages.
Any fault on the part of the person injured may not reduce the
damages recovered for physical injury to that person unless the
court determines that the fault of the person injured exceeded the
fault of the dog's keeper or owner.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: 7 Me. Rev. Stat. § 3961
It is unlawful for any dog, licensed or unlicensed, to be at large, except
when used for hunting. The owner or keeper of any dog found at large is
subject to the penalties provided in this chapter
7 M.R.S.A. §3901
No Updates to Leash Law
Maryland
Determination of potentially dangerous dog
(c) An appropriate unit of a county or municipal corporation may
determine that a dog is potentially dangerous if the unit:
1377041 #1414148
o (1) finds that the dog:
(i) has inflicted a bite on a person while on public
or private real property;
(ii) when not on its owner's real property, has killed
or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal; or
(iii) has attacked without provocation; and
o (2) notifies the dog owner in writing of the reasons for this
determination.
Prohibited
(d) A dog owner may not:
o (1) leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's real
property unless the dog is:
(i) confined indoors;
(ii) in a securely enclosed and locked pen; or
(iii) in another structure designed to restrain the
dog; or
o (2) allow a dangerous dog to leave the owner's real
property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled, or is
otherwise securely restrained and muzzled
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 10-619
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Massachusetts
§ 155. Liability for damage caused by dog; minors; presumption and
burden of proof
If any dog shall do any damage to either the body or property of
any person, the owner or keeper, or if the owner or keeper be a
minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for
such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to
the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was
sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing,
tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an
action under this section is brought, is under seven years of age at
the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such
minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing,
tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof
shall be upon the defendant in such action.
No Updates to Bite Law
1377041 #1414148
Source: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140, § 155 (West)
A person owning, keeping or possessing a dog shall not allow, permit or
consent to such dog chasing, hunting, molesting, attacking or killing a
deer. The director is hereby authorized to issue an order to restrain all
dogs from running at large in any city or town where, in his opinion, such
a restraining order is necessary to prevent dogs from chasing, hunting,
molesting, attacking or killing deer
M.G.L.A. 131 § 82
Whoever is the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain said dog by a chain
or leash when in an officially designated public highway rest area.
Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine
of not more than fifty dollars
M.G.L.A. 140 § 174B
No Updates to Leash Law
Michigan
287.351. Injuries by dogs; liability of owners
Sec. 1. (1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the
person is on public property, or lawfully on private property,
including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the
dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's
knowledge of such viciousness.
(2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the
dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner's
property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her
by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the
United States, or if the person is on the owner's property as an
invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the
property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the
premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.351 (West)
It shall be unlawful for any owner to allow any dog, except working dogs
such as leader dogs, guard dogs, farm dogs, hunting dogs, and other such
dogs, when accompanied by their owner or his authorized agent, while
1377041 #1414148
actively engaged in activities for which such dogs are trained, to stray
unless held properly in leash
M. C. L. A. 287.262
It shall be unlawful for any person to own any dog 6 months old or over
for any owner of any female dog to permit the female dog to go beyond
the premises of such owner when she is in heat unless the female dog is
held properly in leash.
M. C. L. A. 287.262
No Updates to Leash Law, but there is a typo on the page. Changes
“does” to “dogs.”
Minnesota
347.22. Damages, owner liable
If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is
acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be,
the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked
or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term
“owner” includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the
owner shall be primarily liable. The term “dog” includes both male
and female of the canine species.
Source: Minn. Stat. Ann. § 347.22 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
Any person may seize, impound, or restrain any unlicensed dog which the
person may find running at large. The fact that a dog is without a license
attached to a collar shall be presumptive evidence that the dog is
unlicensed. The sheriff and sheriff's deputies or other police officer shall
seize, impound or restrain any dog for which no license has been issued
and for which one is required.
M. S. A. § 347.14
No Updates to Leash Law
Mississippi
No Updates to Bite Law (still no statewide bite statute)
Source:
The governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to
prevent or regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds, and to
1377041 #1414148
cause such as may be running at large to be impounded and sold to
discharge the costs and penalties provided for the violation of such
regulations and the expense of impounding and keeping and selling the
same
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-19-9
No Updates to Leash Law
Missouri
273.036. Dog bite without provocation--owner liable for damages
The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation,
any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on
private property, including the property of the owner or possessor
of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or
possessor's knowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors
of dogs shall also be strictly liable for any damage to property or
livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that
the damaged party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by
the owner or possessor of the biting dog shall be reduced by the
same percentage that the damaged party's fault contributed to the
incident. The provisions of this section shall not apply to dogs
killing or maiming sheep or other domestic animals under section
273.020.
2. Any person who is held liable under the provisions of
subsection 1 of this section shall pay a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars. The remedies provided by this section are in
addition to and cumulative with any other remedy provided by
statute or common law.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 273.036 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law
Montana
27-1-715. Liability of owner of vicious dog
The owner of a dog that without provocation bites a person while
the person is on or in a public place or lawfully on or in a private
place, including the property of the owner of the dog, located
within an incorporated city or town is liable for damages that may
1377041 #1414148
be suffered by the person bitten regardless of the former
viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of the
viciousness.
(2) A person is lawfully upon the private property of the owner
within the meaning of this section when the person is on the
property in the performance of any duty imposed upon the person
by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the
United States of America or when the person is on the property as
an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the
property.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715
A dog found running at large without a valid current dog license tag
issued by the authority of a county or municipal corporation may be
seized and impounded by any sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, game
warden, county poundmaster, or other law enforcement officer
MCA 7-23-102
No Updates to Leash Law
Nebraska
54-601. Dogs; personal property; owner liable for damages;
exceptions
(1) Dogs are hereby declared to be personal property for all intents
and purposes, and, except as provided in subsection (2) of this
section, the owner or owners of any dog or dogs shall be liable for
any and all damages that may accrue (a) to any person, other than
a trespasser, by reason of having been bitten by any such dog or
dogs and (b) to any person, firm, or corporation by reason of such
dog or dogs killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing any
person or persons or any sheep or other domestic animals
belonging to such person, firm, or corporation. Such damage may
be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of the amount
claimed.
(2)(a) A governmental agency or its employees using a dog in
military or police work shall not be liable under subsection (1) of
this section to a party to, participant in, or person reasonably
suspected to be a party to or participant in the act that prompted
1377041 #1414148
the use of the dog in the military or police work if the officers of
the governmental agency were complying with a written policy on
the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for military or police
work adopted by the governmental agency and if the damage
occurred while the dog was responding to a harassing or provoking
act or the damage was the result of a reasonable use of force while
the dog or dogs were assisting an employee of the agency in any of
the following:
o (i) The apprehension or holding of a suspect if the
employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's
involvement in criminal activity;
o (ii) The investigation of a crime or possible crime;
o (iii) The execution of a warrant; or
o (iv) The defense of a peace officer or another person other
than the suspect.
(b) For purposes of this subsection, harassing or provoking act
means knowingly and intentionally attempting to interfere with,
interfering with, teasing or harassing such dog in order to distract,
or agitating or harming such dog.
Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601
No Updates to Bite Law
Leash Law Update:
The owner of any dog running at large for ten days without a collar as
required shall be fined an amount not to exceed $25.
Neb. Rev. St. § 54-607
Nevada
202.500. Dangerous or vicious dogs: Unlawful acts; penalties
1. As used in this section, a dog is:
o (a) “Dangerous” if:
(1) It is so declared pursuant to subsection 2; or
(2) Without provocation, on two separate occasions
within 18 months, it behaves menacingly, to a
degree that would lead a reasonable person to
defend himself or herself against substantial bodily
harm, when the dog is:
(I) Off the premises of its owner or keeper;
1377041 #1414148
or
(II) Not confined in a cage, pen or vehicle.
o (b) “Provoked” when it is tormented or subjected to pain.
o (c) “Vicious” if:
(1) Without being provoked, it kills or inflicts
substantial bodily harm upon a human being; or
(2) After its owner or keeper has been notified by a
law enforcement agency that it is dangerous, it
continues the behavior described in paragraph (a).
2. A dog may be declared dangerous by a law enforcement agency
if it is used in the commission of a crime by its owner or keeper.
3. A dog may not be found dangerous or vicious because of a
defensive act against a person who was committing or attempting
to commit a crime or who provoked the dog.
4. A person who knowingly:
o (a) Owns or keeps a vicious dog, for more than 7 days after
the person has actual notice that the dog is vicious; or
o (b) Transfers ownership of a vicious dog after the person
has actual notice that the dog is vicious,
is guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. If substantial bodily harm results from an attack by a dog known
to be vicious, its owner or keeper is guilty of a category D felony
and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In lieu of, or in
addition to, a penalty provided in this subsection, the judge may
order the vicious dog to be humanely destroyed.
6. This section does not apply to a dog used by a law enforcement
officer in the performance of his or her duty.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 202.500 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
New Hampshire
466:31 Dogs a Menace, a Nuisance or Vicious.
I. [Repealed.]
II. Under this section, a dog is considered to be a nuisance, a menace, or
vicious to persons or to property under any or all but not limited to the
following conditions:
(a) If a dog is “at large,” which means it is off the premises of the owner
or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of personal
presence and attention as will reasonably control the conduct of such dog,
1377041 #1414148
unless accompanied by the owner or custodian. This subparagraph shall
not include a dog which is being used for hunting, supervised competition,
exhibition, or training for such activities if accompanied by the owner or
custodian, or a dog which is guarding, working, or herding livestock, as
defined in RSA 21: 34-a, II(a)(4), meaning that the owner or custodian
must be able to see or hear the dog, or have reasonable knowledge of
where the dog is hunting or herding, or where training is being conducted
or where trials are being held, provided that such dog does not have to be
within sight at all time;
(b) If it barks for sustained periods of more than ½ hour, or during the
night hours so as to disturb the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or area,
not including a dog which is guarding, working, or herding livestock, as
defined in RSA 21:34-a, II(a)(4);
(c) If it digs, scratches, or excretes, or causes waste or garbage to be
scattered on property other than its owner's;
(d) If any female dog in season (heat) is permitted to run at large or be off
the premises of the owner or keeper during this period except when being
exercised on a leash by a responsible adult. At all other times such dog
shall be confined within a building or enclosure in such manner that she
will not come in contact (except for intentional breeding purposes) with a
male dog. A female dog in heat shall not be used for hunting;
(e) If it growls, snaps at, runs after, or chases any person or persons not on
the premises of the owner or keeper;
(f) If it runs after, or chases bicycles, motor vehicles, motorcycles, or
other vehicles being driven, pulled or pushed on the streets, highways, or
public ways;
(g) If, whether alone or in a pack with other dogs, it bites, attacks, or preys
on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings.
II-a. If the skin of a person has been punctured by a dog and the incident
was reported, including the identity of the dog and its owner, to the animal
officer, if any, or to the town clerk, such officer or clerk shall, within 24
hours, notify the injured person, or, in the case of a minor, the minor's
parent or guardian, whether, according to town records, the dog has been
appropriately immunized against rabies.
III. (a) Any person who fails, by appropriate action including but not
limited to restraining an animal from running at large, or otherwise
effectively abating a nuisance found such under the provisions of this
section, or who fails to comply with any other provisions of this section
after being so ordered, shall have the person's dog taken into custody by
the police of the city, constable of the town, or other person authorized by
the town and such disposition made of the dog as the court may order.
(b) Notwithstanding RSA 466:31-a, if a law enforcement officer does not
witness the nuisance behavior, the name of the complainant shall be
released as public information before any fine under RSA 466:31-a shall
be levied.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 466:31
1377041 #1414148
No Updates to Bite Law
466:30-a Dog Control Law.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, it shall be
unlawful for any dog to run at large, except when accompanied by
the owner or custodian, and when used for hunting, for guarding,
working, or herding livestock, as defined in RSA 21:34-a, II(a)(4),
for supervised competition and exhibition, or for training for such.
For the purpose of this section, “accompanied” means that the
owner or custodian must be able to see or hear, or both, or have
reasonable knowledge of where the dog is hunting, where training
is being conducted, where trials are being held, or where the dog is
guarding, working, or herding livestock. Nothing herein provided
shall mean that the dog must be within sight at all times.
II. In this section, “at large” means off the premises of the owner
or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of
personal presence and attention as will reasonably control the
conduct of such dog, unless accompanied by the owner or
custodian.
III. Any authorized person may seize, impound or restrain any dog
in violation of this section and deliver said dog to a person or
shelter authorized to board dogs. Such dogs shall be handled as
strays or abandoned dogs pursuant to applicable laws.
IV. In addition to impounding a dog found at large or in violation
of this section, any local law enforcement officer may issue, in the
name of the owner or keeper of such dog, a notice of violation for
a nuisance dog pursuant to RSA 466:31, II(a).
V. The provisions of this section shall not be effective in any city
or town unless adopted by a city or town pursuant to RSA
466:30b.
Source: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 466:30-a (West)
No Updates to Leash Law
New Jersey
4:19-16. Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog
The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person
is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place,
including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for
such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless
1377041 #1414148
of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of
such viciousness.
For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the
private property of such owner when he is on the property in the
performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this
state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when
he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of
the owner thereof.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-16 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
New Mexico
UJI 13-506. LIABILITY OF DOG OWNER
An owner of a dog is liable for damages proximately caused by the
dog if the owner knew, or should have known, that the dog was
vicious or had a tendency or natural inclination to be vicious.[The
owner of such a dog is not liable to the person injured, if the
injured person had knowledge of the propensities of the dog and
wantonly excited it or voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself in
the way of the dog.]
DIRECTIONS FOR USE: This instruction should be used when
the issue and the evidence is that of damages from attack or bite by
a dog.
Source: NMRA, UJI 13-506
UJI 13-506 NMRA
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
New York
§ 123. Dangerous dogs
Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the
case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may
make a complaint of an attack or threatened attack upon a person,
companion animal as defined in section three hundred fifty of this
chapter, farm animal as defined in such section three hundred fifty,
1377041 #1414148
or a domestic animal as defined in subdivision seven of section
one hundred eight of this article to a dog control officer or police
officer of the appropriate municipality. Such officer shall
immediately inform the complainant of his or her right to
commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this
section and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous
dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself
or herself.
2. Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in
the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may,
and any dog control officer or police officer as provided in
subdivision one of this section shall, make a complaint under oath
or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or
threatened attack. Thereupon, the judge or justice shall
immediately determine if there is probable cause to believe the dog
is a dangerous dog and, if so, shall issue an order to any dog
control officer, peace officer, acting pursuant to his or her special
duties, or police officer directing such officer to immediately seize
such dog and hold the same pending judicial determination as
provided in this section. Whether or not the judge or justice finds
there is probable cause for such seizure, he or she shall, within five
days and upon written notice of not less than two days to the
owner of the dog, hold a hearing on the complaint. The petitioner
shall have the burden at such hearing to prove the dog is a
“dangerous dog” by clear and convincing evidence. If satisfied that
the dog is a dangerous dog, the judge or justice shall then order
neutering or spaying of the dog, microchipping of the dog and one
or more of the following as deemed appropriate under the
circumstances and as deemed necessary for the protection of the
public:
o (a) evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist,
a board certified veterinary behaviorist, or another
recognized expert in the field and completion of training or
other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert. The
owner of the dog shall be responsible for all costs
associated with evaluations and training ordered under this
section;
o (b) secure, humane confinement of the dog for a period of
time and in a manner deemed appropriate by the court but
in all instances in a manner designed to: (1) prevent escape
of the dog, (2) protect the public from unauthorized contact
with the dog, and (3) to protect the dog from the elements
1377041 #1414148
pursuant to section three hundred fifty-three-b of this
chapter. Such confinement shall not include lengthy
periods of tying or chaining;
o (c) restraint of the dog on a leash by an adult of at least
twenty-one years of age whenever the dog is on public
premises;
o (d) muzzling the dog whenever it is on public premises in a
manner that will prevent it from biting any person or
animal, but that shall not injure the dog or interfere with its
vision or respiration; or
o (e) maintenance of a liability insurance policy in an amount
determined by the court, but in no event in excess of one
hundred thousand dollars for personal injury or death
resulting from an attack by such dangerous dog.
3. Upon a finding that a dog is dangerous, the judge or justice may
order humane euthanasia or permanent confinement of the dog if
one of the following aggravating circumstances is established at
the judicial hearing held pursuant to subdivision two of this
section:
o (a) the dog, without justification, attacked a person causing
serious physical injury or death; or
o (b) the dog has a known vicious propensity as evidenced by
a previous unjustified attack on a person, which caused
serious physical injury or death; or
o (c) the dog, without justification, caused serious physical
injury or death to a companion animal, farm animal or
domestic animal, and has, in the past two years, caused
unjustified physical injury or death to a companion or farm
animal as evidenced by a “dangerous dog” finding pursuant
to the provisions of this section. An order of humane
euthanasia shall not be carried out until expiration of the
thirty day period provided for in subdivision five of this
section for filing a notice of appeal, unless the owner of the
dog has indicated to the judge in writing, his or her
intention to waive his or her right to appeal. Upon filing of
a notice of appeal, the order shall be automatically stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal.
4. A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the court determines
the conduct of the dog (a) was justified because the threat, injury
or damage was sustained by a person who at the time was
committing a crime or offense upon the owner or custodian of the
1377041 #1414148
dog or upon the property of the owner or custodian of the dog; (b)
was justified because the injured, threatened or killed person was
tormenting, abusing, assaulting or physically threatening the dog
or its offspring, or has in the past tormented, abused, assaulted or
physically threatened the dog or its offspring; (c) was justified
because the dog was responding to pain or injury, or was
protecting itself, its owner, custodian, or a member of its
household, its kennels or its offspring; or was justified because the
injured, threatened or killed companion animal, farm animal or
domestic animal was attacking or threatening to attack the dog or
its offspring. Testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, a board
certified veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert shall
be relevant to the court's determination as to whether the dog's
behavior was justified pursuant to the provisions of this
subdivision.
5. (a) The owner of a dog found to be a “dangerous dog” pursuant
to this section may appeal such determination, and/or the court's
order concerning disposition of the dog to the court having
jurisdiction to hear civil appeals in the county where the
“dangerous dog” finding was made. The owner shall commence
such appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the appropriate court
within thirty days of the final order pursuant to this section. Court
rules governing civil appeals in the appropriate jurisdiction shall
govern the appeal of a determination under this section.
o (b) Upon filing a notice of appeal from an order of humane
euthanasia pursuant to this section, such order shall be
automatically stayed pending final determination of any
appeal. In all other circumstances, the owner of the dog
may make application to the court to issue a stay of
disposition pending determination of the appeal.
6. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission,
negligently permits his or her dog to bite a person, service dog,
guide dog or hearing dog causing physical injury shall be subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed four hundred dollars in addition to
any other applicable penalties.
7. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission,
negligently permits his or her dog to bite a person causing serious
physical injury shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one
thousand five hundred dollars in addition to any other applicable
penalties. Any such penalty may be reduced by any amount which
is paid as restitution by the owner of the dog to the person or
1377041 #1414148
persons suffering serious physical injury as compensation for
unreimbursed medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages
resulting from such injury.
8. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission,
negligently permits his or her dog, which had previously been
determined to be dangerous pursuant to this article, to bite a person
causing serious physical injury, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars, or by
a period of imprisonment not to exceed ninety days, or by both
such fine and imprisonment in addition to any other applicable
penalties. Any such fine may be reduced by any amount which is
paid as restitution by the owner of the dog to the person or persons
suffering serious physical injury as compensation for
unreimbursed medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages
resulting from such injury.
9. If any dog, which had previously been determined by a judge or
justice to be a dangerous dog, as defined in section one hundred
eight of this article, shall without justification kill or cause the
death of any person who is peaceably conducting himself or
herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, regardless of
whether such dog escapes without fault of the owner, the owner
shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor in addition to any other
penalties.
10. The owner or lawful custodian of a dangerous dog shall, except
in the circumstances enumerated in subdivisions four and eleven of
this section, be strictly liable for medical costs resulting from
injury caused by such dog to a person, companion animal, farm
animal or domestic animal.
11. The owner shall not be liable pursuant to subdivision six,
seven, eight, nine or ten of this section if the dog was coming to
the aid or defense of a person during the commission or attempted
commission of a murder, robbery, burglary, arson, rape in the first
degree as defined in subdivision one or two of section 130.35 of
the penal law, criminal sexual act in the first degree as defined in
subdivision one or two of section 130.50 of the penal law or
kidnapping within the dwelling or upon the real property of the
owner of the dog and the dog injured or killed the person
committing such criminal activity.
12. Nothing contained in this section shall limit or abrogate any
claim or cause of action any person who is injured by a dog with a
vicious disposition or a vicious propensity may have under
1377041 #1414148
common law or by statute. The provisions of this section shall be
in addition to such common law and statutory remedies.
13. Nothing contained in this section shall restrict the rights and
powers derived from the provisions of title four of article twenty-
one of the public health law relating to rabies and any rule and
regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
14. Persons owning, possessing or harboring dangerous dogs shall
report the presence of such dangerous dogs pursuant to section two
hundred nine-cc of the general municipal law.
Source: N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123 (McKinney)
No Updates to Bite Law
The governing body of any municipality may at any time by order require
that all dogs in such municipality shall be securely confined between
sunset and one hour after sunrise during the period of time designated in
the order, or, if no time is so designated, until the order is revoked
Source: McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 121
No Updates to Leash Law
North Carolina
§ 130A-200. Confinement or leashing of vicious animals
A local health director may declare an animal to be vicious and a
menace to the public health when the animal has attacked a person
causing bodily harm without being teased, molested, provoked,
beaten, tortured or otherwise harmed. When an animal has been
declared to be vicious and a menace to the public health, the local
health director shall order the animal to be confined to its owner's
property. However, the animal may be permitted to leave its
owner's property when accompanied by a responsible adult and
restrained on a leash.
§ 67-4.2. Precautions against attacks by dangerous dogs
(a) It is unlawful for an owner to:
o (1) Leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's real
property unless the dog is confined indoors, in a securely
enclosed and locked pen, or in another structure designed
to restrain the dog;
o (2) Permit a dangerous dog to go beyond the owner's real
property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled or is
otherwise securely restrained and muzzled.
1377041 #1414148
(b) If the owner of a dangerous dog transfers ownership or
possession of the dog to another person (as defined in G.S. 12-
3(6)), the owner shall provide written notice to:
o (1) The authority that made the determination under this
Article, stating the name and address of the new owner or
possessor of the dog; and
o (2) The person taking ownership or possession of the dog,
specifying the dog's dangerous behavior and the authority's
determination.
(c) Violation of this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor
Source: N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-200 (West), N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §
67-4.2 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No person shall allow his dog over six months old to run at large in the
nighttime unaccompanied by the owner or by some member of the owner's
family, or some other person by the owner's permission. Any person
intentionally, knowingly, and willfully violating this section shall be
guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, and shall also be liable in damages to
any person injured or suffering loss to his property or chattels
Source: N.C.G.S.A. § 67-12
No Updates to Leash Law
North Dakota
§ 42-03-01. When dogs are a public nuisance
Any dog that habitually molests a person traveling peaceably on
the public road or street is a public nuisance. Upon written
complaint to a district or municipal judge describing the dog,
giving the name of the dog and the dog's owner if known, and, if
not, so stating, and alleging that the dog is a public nuisance, the
district or municipal judge shall give notice to the dog's owner that
a complaint has been filed that the dog has been molesting certain
persons and that the owner shall take the necessary action to
prevent the dog from any further violations of this chapter. If the
district or municipal judge receives a further complaint regarding
the dog after notice has been given under this section, the judge
shall issue a summons, if the owner is known, commanding the
owner to appear before the judge in the same manner as other
court summonses.
Source: N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 42-03-01 (West)
1377041 #1414148
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Ohio
955.28 Dog may be killed for certain acts; owner liable for damages
(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 of the
Revised Code, a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing
fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or
otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person or a dog that
chases, threatens, harasses, injures, or kills livestock, poultry, other
domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another
person, except a cat or another dog, can be killed at the time of that
chasing, threatening, harassment, approaching, attempt, killing, or
injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, the
person is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws that punish
cruelty to animals. Nothing in this section precludes a law
enforcement officer from killing a dog that attacks a police dog as
defined in section 2921.321 of the Revised Code.
(B) The owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages
for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by
the dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person
or property of an individual who, at the time, was committing or
attempting to commit criminal trespass or another criminal offense
other than a minor misdemeanor on the property of the owner,
keeper, or harborer, or was committing or attempting to commit a
criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor against any
person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the
owner's, keeper's, or harborer's property. Additionally, the owner,
keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury,
death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog if the
injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an
individual who, at the time of the injury, death, or loss, was on the
property of the owner, keeper, or harborer solely for the purpose of
engaging in door-to-door sales or other solicitations regardless of
whether the individual was in compliance with any requirement to
obtain a permit or license to engage in door-to-door sales or other
solicitations established by the political subdivision in which the
property of the owner, keeper, or harborer is located, provided that
the person was not committing a criminal offense other than a
minor misdemeanor or was not teasing, tormenting, or abusing the
1377041 #1414148
dog.
Source: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.28 (West)
Add Update to Bite Law:
Under „Vicious Dogs‟ add that the owner of a dog who bites a person
without provocation may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include the restraint of dogs,
except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any
dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of
hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter
RC § 955.221
No Updates to Leash Law
Oklahoma
§ 42.1. Personal injury by dog--Liability of owner
The owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the
full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without
provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or
on a place where he has a lawful right to be.
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 4, § 42.1 (West)
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Oregon
609.093. Considerations as to disposition of chasing, menacing or
biting dog
In determining whether a dog should be killed as provided under
ORS 609.090 (7) or 609.990 (6), a dog control board, county
governing body or court shall consider the following factors:
o (1) If the dog has bitten a person, the circumstances and
severity of the bite;
o (2) Whether the keeper has a history of maintaining dogs
that are a public nuisance;
o (3) The impact of keeper actions on the behavior of the
dog;
o (4) The ability and inclination of the keeper to prevent the
dog from chasing or menacing another person on premises
1377041 #1414148
other than the premises from which the keeper may
lawfully exclude others or from biting another person;
o (5) Whether the dog can be relocated to a secure facility;
o (6) The effect that a transfer of the keeping of the dog to
another person would have on ensuring the health and
safety of the public;
o (7) Behavior by the dog before or since the biting, chasing
or menacing; and
o (8) Any other factors that the board, governing body or
court may deem relevant.
Source: Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 609.093 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Pennsylvania
§ 459-502. Dog bites; detention and isolation of dogs
(a) Confinement.--Any dog which bites or attacks a human being
shall be confined in quarters approved by a designated employee
of the Department of Health, a State dog warden or employee of
the Department of Agriculture, an animal control officer or a
police officer. The dog may be detained and isolated in an
approved kennel or at the dog owner's property or at another
location approved by the investigating officer. Where the dog is
detained is at the discretion of the investigating officer. All dogs so
detained must be isolated for a minimum of ten days. Any costs
incurred in the detaining and isolation of the dog shall be paid by
the offending dog's owner or keeper or both. If the dog's owner or
keeper is not known, the Commonwealth is responsible for all
reasonable costs for holding and detaining the dog.
(b) Bite victims.--The following shall apply:
o (1) The investigating officer shall be responsible for
notifying the bite victim of the medical results of the
offending dog's confinement. Any cost to the victim for
medical treatment resulting from an attacking or biting dog
must be paid fully by the owner or keeper of the dog. The
Commonwealth shall not be liable for medical treatment
costs to the victim.
o (2)(i) For the purpose of this subsection, the term “medical
results of the offending dog's confinement” shall mean,
except as provided in subparagraph (ii), information as to
1377041 #1414148
whether the quarantined dog is still alive and whether it is
exhibiting any signs of being infected with the rabies virus.
(ii) If a nonlethal test for rabies is developed, the
term shall mean the results of the test and not the
meaning given in subparagraph (i).
(c) Exception.--When a dog that bites or attacks a human being is
a service dog or a police work dog in the performance of duties,
the dog need not be confined if it is under the active supervision of
a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine.
§ 459-504-A. Control of dangerous dogs
It is unlawful for an owner or keeper of a dangerous dog to permit
the dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is
muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under
physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle shall be
made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere
with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any
person or animal or from destroying property with its teeth.
Source: Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, § 459-502 (West), Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, § 459-504-A
(West)
No Updates to Bite Law
Confinement and control.--It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of
any dog to fail to keep at all times the dog in any of the following
manners:
(1) confined within the premises of the owner;
(2) firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it
cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or
(3) under the reasonable control of some person, or when engaged in
lawful hunting, exhibition, performance events or field training
Source: 3 P.S. § 459-305
No Updates to Leash Law
Rhode Island
Determination of a vicious dog
(a) In the event that the dog officer or law enforcement officer has
probable cause to believe that a dog is vicious, the chief dog officer or his
or her immediate supervisor or the chief of police, or his or her designee,
is empowered to convene a hearing for the purpose of determining
whether or not the dog in question should be declared vicious. The dog
officer or chief of police shall conduct or cause to be conducted an
1377041 #1414148
investigation and shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing
will be held, at which time he or she may have the opportunity to present
evidence why the dog should not be declared vicious. The hearing shall be
held promptly within no less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) days
after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog while said
notice shall be served upon the owner. The hearing shall be informal and
shall be open to the public. The hearing shall be conducted by a panel of
three (3) persons which shall consist of the chief of police or his or her
designee, the executive director of the society for the prevention of cruelty
to animals (S.P.C.A.) or his or her designee, and a person chosen by the
chief of police and the executive director of the S.P.C.A. All members of
the panel shall have one vote in making a determination whether or not the
dog in question is vicious. Hearing officers shall have immunity.
(b) After the hearing, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in
writing of the determination. If a determination is made that the dog is
vicious, the owner or keeper shall comply with this chapter in accordance
with a time schedule established by the dog officer or chief of police, but
in no case more than thirty (30) days subsequent to the date of the
determination. If the owner or keeper of the dog contests the
determination, he or she may, within five (5) days of that determination,
bring a petition in the district court within the judicial district where the
dog is owned or kept, praying that the court conduct its own hearing on
whether or not the dog should be declared vicious. After service of notice
upon the dog officer, the court shall conduct a hearing de novo and make
its own determination as to viciousness. The hearing shall be conducted
within seven (7) days of the service of the notice upon the dog officer or
law enforcement officer involved. The issue shall be decided upon the
preponderance of the evidence. If the court rules the dog to be vicious, the
court may establish a time schedule to insure compliance with this
chapter, but in no case more than thirty (30) days subsequent to the date of
the court's determination. If the owner has not complied with the
provisions of this chapter at the end of thirty (30) days from the written
notification that the dog is vicious, the dog may be euthanized.
(c) The court may decide all issues for or against the owner or keeper of
the dog regardless of the fact that the owner or keeper fails to appear at the
hearing.
(d) The determination of the district court shall be final and conclusive
upon all parties. The dog officer or any law enforcement officer shall have
the right to convene a hearing under this section for any subsequent
actions of the dog.
(e) In the event that the dog officer or law enforcement officer has
probable cause to believe that the dog in question is vicious and may pose
a threat of serious harm to human beings or other domestic animals, the
dog officer or law enforcement officer may seize and impound the dog
pending the hearings. The owner or keeper of the dog is liable to the city
or town where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping
the dog. The city or town council may establish by ordinance a schedule
of those costs and expenses.
1377041 #1414148
Source: R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 4-13.1-11 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Laws (no statewide statute)
South Carolina
§ 47-3-110. Liability of owner or person having dog in his care or
keeping. Whenever any person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog
while the person is in a public place or is lawfully in a private
place, including the property of the owner of the dog or other
person having the dog in his care or keeping, the owner of the dog
or other person having the dog in his care or keeping is liable for
the damages suffered by the person bitten or otherwise attacked.
For the purposes of this section, a person bitten or otherwise
attacked is lawfully in a private place, including the property of the
owner of the dog or other person having the dog in his care or
keeping, when the person bitten or otherwise attacked is on the
property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the
laws of this State, by the ordinances of any political subdivision of
this State, by the laws of the United States of America, including,
but not limited to, postal regulations, or when the person bitten or
otherwise attacked is on the property upon the invitation, express
or implied, of the owner of the property or of any lawful tenant or
resident of the property. If a person provokes a dog into attacking
him then the owner of the dog is not liable.
Source: S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110
No Updates to Bite Law
It is unlawful in any county or municipality adopting penalty provisions
pursuant to the provisions of this article for any dog or cat owner or other
keeper of a dog or cat to allow his dog to run at large off of property
owned, rented, or controlled by him
Source: S.C. Code 1976 § 47-3-50
It shall be unlawful for any person at any park or facility under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism to bring a
dog or any other animal into the park or facility unless it is crated, caged,
or upon a leash not longer than six feet or otherwise under physically
1377041 #1414148
restrictive control at all times
Source: S.C. Code 1976 § 51-3-145
Update to Leash Law:
In state parks, dogs must be leashed at all times.
South Dakota
40-34-14. Vicious dog defined
For the purposes of §§ 40-34-13 to 40-34-15, inclusive, a vicious dog is:
(1) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious or terrorizing manner
approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, inflicts injury, assaults,
or otherwise attacks a human being upon the streets, sidewalks, or any
public grounds or places; or
(2) Any dog which, on private property, when unprovoked, in a vicious or
terrifying manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or
inflicts injury, or otherwise attacks a mailman, meter reader, serviceman,
journeyman, delivery man, or other employed person who is on private
property by reason of permission of the owner or occupant of such
property or who is on private property by reason of a course of dealing
with the owner of such private property.
40-34-13. Ownership of vicious dog as public nuisance
Any person owning or keeping a vicious dog as defined in §§ 40-34-13 to
40-34-15, inclusive, has committed a public nuisance and is subject to the
provisions of §§ 21-10-5 and 21-10-9.
Source: S.D. Codified Laws § 40-34-13 to 14
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Tennessee
§ 44-8-413. Injury caused by dogs; civil liability; exceptions; limitations
(a)(1) The owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable
control at all times, and to keep that dog from running at large. A person
who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages
suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or
lawfully in or on the private property of another.
1377041 #1414148
(2) The owner may be held liable regardless of whether the dog has shown
any dangerous propensities or whether the dog's owner knew or should
have known of the dog's dangerous propensities.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not be construed to impose liability upon the
owner of the dog if:
(1) The dog is a police or military dog, the injury occurred during the
course of the dog's official duties and the person injured was a party to, a
participant in or suspected of being a party to or participant in the act or
conduct that prompted the police or military to utilize the services of the
dog;
(2) The injured person was trespassing upon the private, nonresidential
property of the dog's owner;
(3) The injury occurred while the dog was protecting the dog's owner or
other innocent party from attack by the injured person or a dog owned by
the injured person;
(4) The injury occurred while the dog was securely confined in a kennel,
crate or other enclosure; or
(5) The injury occurred as a result of the injured person enticing,
disturbing, alarming, harassing, or otherwise provoking the dog.
(c)(1) If a dog causes damage to a person while the person is on
residential, farm or other noncommercial property, and the dog's owner is
the owner of the property, or is on the property by permission of the
owner or as a lawful tenant or lessee, in any civil action based upon such
damages brought against the owner of the dog, the claimant shall be
required to establish that the dog's owner knew or should have known of
the dog's dangerous propensities.
(2) The element of proof required by subdivision (c)(1) shall be in
addition to any other elements the claimant may be required to prove in
order to establish a claim under the prevailing Tennessee law of premises
liability or comparative fault.
(d) The statute of limitations for an action brought pursuant to this section
shall be the same as provided in § 28-3-104, for personal injury actions.
(e) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) “Owner” means a person who, at the time of the damage caused to
another, regularly harbors, keeps or exercises control over the dog, but
does not include a person who, at the time of the damage, is temporarily
1377041 #1414148
harboring, keeping or exercising control over the dog; and
(2) “Running at large” means a dog goes uncontrolled by the dog's owner
upon the premises of another without the consent of the owner of the
premises, or other person authorized to give consent, or goes uncontrolled
by the owner upon a highway, public road, street or any other place open
to the public generally.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law
Texas § 822.005. Attack by Dog
(a) A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dog and
the person:
(1) with criminal negligence, as defined by Section 6.03, Penal Code, fails
to secure the dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another
person that occurs at a location other than the owner's real property or in
or on the owner's motor vehicle or boat and that causes serious bodily
injury, as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, or death to the other
person; or
(2) knows the dog is a dangerous dog by learning in a manner described
by Section 822.042(g) that the person is the owner of a dangerous dog,
and the dangerous dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that
occurs at a location other than a secure enclosure in which the dog is
restrained in accordance with Subchapter D and that causes serious bodily
injury, as defined by Section 822.001, or death to the other person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree unless the
attack causes death, in which event the offense is a felony of the second
degree.
(c) If a person is found guilty of an offense under this section, the court
may order the dog destroyed by a person listed in Section 822.004.
(d) A person who is subject to prosecution under this section and under
any other law may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 822.005 (West)
§ 822.042. Requirements for Owner of Dangerous Dog
(a) Not later than the 30th day after a person learns that the person is the
owner of a dangerous dog, the person shall:
(1) register the dangerous dog with the animal control authority for the
1377041 #1414148
area in which the dog is kept;
(2) restrain the dangerous dog at all times on a leash in the immediate
control of a person or in a secure enclosure;
(3) obtain liability insurance coverage or show financial responsibility in
an amount of at least $100,000 to cover damages resulting from an attack
by the dangerous dog causing bodily injury to a person and provide proof
of the required liability insurance coverage or financial responsibility to
the animal control authority for the area in which the dog is kept; and
(4) comply with an applicable municipal or county regulation,
requirement, or restriction on dangerous dogs.
(b) The owner of a dangerous dog who does not comply with Subsection
(a) shall deliver the dog to the animal control authority not later than the
30th day after the owner learns that the dog is a dangerous dog.
(c) If, on application of any person, a justice court, county court, or
municipal court finds, after notice and hearing as provided by Section
822.0423, that the owner of a dangerous dog has failed to comply with
Subsection (a) or (b), the court shall order the animal control authority to
seize the dog and shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure. The
authority shall seize the dog or order its seizure and shall provide for the
impoundment of the dog in secure and humane conditions.
(d) The owner shall pay any cost or fee assessed by the municipality or
county related to the seizure, acceptance, impoundment, or destruction of
the dog. The governing body of the municipality or county may prescribe
the amount of the fees.
(e) The court shall order the animal control authority to humanely destroy
the dog if the owner has not complied with Subsection (a) before the 11th
day after the date on which the dog is seized or delivered to the authority.
The court shall order the authority to return the dog to the owner if the
owner complies with Subsection (a) before the 11th day after the date on
which the dog is seized or delivered to the authority.
(f) The court may order the humane destruction of a dog if the owner of
the dog has not been located before the 15th day after the seizure and
impoundment of the dog.
(g) For purposes of this section, a person learns that the person is the
owner of a dangerous dog when:
(1) the owner knows of an attack described in Section 822.041(2)(A) or
(B);
1377041 #1414148
(2) the owner receives notice that a justice court, county court, or
municipal court has found that the dog is a dangerous dog under Section
822.0423; or
(3) the owner is informed by the animal control authority that the dog is a
dangerous dog under Section 822.0421.
Source: Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 822.042 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Utah § 18-1-1. Liability of owners--Scienter--Dogs used in law enforcement
(1) Every person owning or keeping a dog is liable in damages for injury
committed by the dog, and it is not necessary in the action brought
therefor to allege or prove that the dog was of a vicious or mischievous
disposition or that the owner or keeper of the dog knew that it was vicious
or mischievous.
(2) Notwithstanding Subsection (1), neither the state nor any county, city,
or town in the state nor any peace officer employed by any of them shall
be liable in damages for injury committed by a dog, if:
(a) the dog has been trained to assist in law enforcement; and
(b) the injury occurs while the dog is reasonably and carefully being used
in the apprehension, arrest, or location of a suspected offender or in
maintaining or controlling the public order.
Source: Utah Code Ann. § 18-1-1 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Vermont
No Updates to Bite Law
Source: Westlaw (showing no applicable statute); Confirmed by
http://dogbitelaw.com/one-bite-state/vermont-dog-bite-law.html
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Virginia
1377041 #1414148
Most local jurisdictions in West Virginia have adopted some kind of a dog
leash law. There is no state-wide dog leash law. However, Virginia does
have a state-wide law governing “dangerous dogs.”
The law begins by defining what exactly is a dangerous dog or a vicious
dog:
“Dangerous dog” means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten,
attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog
or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat. When a dog
attacks or bites a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or
biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous: (i) if no serious physical injury
as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the dog or cat as
a result of the attack or bite; (ii) if both animals are owned by the same
person; (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting
dog's owner or custodian; or (iv) for other good cause as determined by
the court.
“Vicious dog” means a canine or canine crossbreed that has: (i) killed a
person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites,
serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment
of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted
in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal
control officer as authorized by ordinance, that it is a dangerous dog,
provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.
Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 (West)
The Virginia statute further imposes criminal penalties on the owners of
dangerous dogs:
Any owner or custodian of a canine or canine crossbreed or other animal
is guilty of a:
1. Class 2 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously
declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration
arose out of a separate and distinct incident, attacks and injures or kills a
cat or dog that is a companion animal belonging to another person;
2. Class 1 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously
declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration
arose out of a separate and distinct incident, bites a human being or
attacks a human being causing bodily injury; or
3. Class 6 felony if any owner or custodian whose willful act or omission
in the care, control, or containment of a canine, canine crossbreed, or
other animal is so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless
disregard for human life, and is the proximate cause of such dog or other
animal attacking and causing serious bodily injury to any person.
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any animal that, at the
1377041 #1414148
time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was
protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or
custodian's property, or when the animal is a police dog that is engaged in
the performance of its duties at the time of the attack.
Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
Washington
16.08.040. Dog bites—Liability.
The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is
in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the
property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as
may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former
viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
Source: West's RCWA 16.08.010
16.08.090. Dangerous dogs--Requirements for restraint--Potentially
dangerous dogs--Dogs not declared dangerous
(1) It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to be
outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a
substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible
person. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to
the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from
biting any person or animal.
(2) Potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal,
and county ordinances. Nothing in this section limits restrictions local
jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs.
(3) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage
was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a wilful
trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog,
or was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been
observed or reported to have tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog or
was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
Source: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 16.08.090 (West)
No Updates to Bite Law
No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)
West Virginia
Although West Virginia has a dog bite statute, it is limited to dogs running
1377041 #1414148
at large.
§ 19-20-13. Dog running at large; liability of owner.
Any owner or keeper of any dog who permits such dog to run at large
shall be liable for any damages inflicted upon the person or property of
another by such dog while so running at large.
The West Virginia statute is strict liability, which means that the plaintiff
does not have to prove that the dog‟s owner knew the dog was dangerous
or that the dog had attacked people before.
However, if the dog is on the leash or on the owner‟s property, then West
Virginia applies the “one bite rule.” Under this rule, a dog's owner is liable
for injuries the dog causes only if the owner knew or had reason to know
that the dog was likely to cause that kind of injury. So if your dog tries to
bite someone, from that moment on you're on notice that the dog is
dangerous, and you will be liable if the dog later bites
Source: W. Va. Code 19-20-13
§ 19-20-20. Keeping vicious dogs; humane officers may kill such dogs
Except as provided in section twenty-one of this article, no person shall
own, keep or harbor any dog known by him to be vicious, dangerous, or in
the habit of biting or attacking other persons, whether or not such dog
wears a tag or muzzle. Upon satisfactory proof before a circuit court or
magistrate that such dog is vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or
attacking other persons or other dogs or animals, the judge may authorize
the humane officer to cause such dog to be killed.
W. Va. Code Ann. § 19-20-20 (West)
No Update to Bite or Leash Law
Wisconsin
174.02. Owner's liability for damage caused by dog
(1) Liability for injury.
(a) Without notice. [First Attack or Bite] The owner of a
dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by
the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic
animal or property.
(b) After notice. [Second Attack or Bite] The owner of a
dog is liable for 2 times the full amount of damages
caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person,
domestic animal or property if the owner was notified or
knew that the dog previously injured or caused injury to
a person, domestic animal or property.
1377041 #1414148
Source: WI ST 173.01-40
No Updates to Bite Law
A dog is considered to be running at large if it is off the premises of its owner
and not under the control of the owner or some other person.
A dog that is actively engaged in a legal hunting activity, including training, is
not considered to be running at large if the dog is monitored or supervised by a
person and the dog is on land that is open to hunting or on land on which the
person has obtained permission to hunt or to train a dog.
Dog running at large or untagged dog subject to impoundment. An officer shall
attempt to capture and restrain any dog running at large and any untagged dog
Source: W.S.A. 174.042
Wyoming
No Updates to Bite Law (no statewide statute)
§ 11-31-301(h) Animals Running at Large
Any animal attacking any person in a vicious manner or that bites
any person may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal
control officer and held in quarantine for at least ten (10) days or
as long as necessary as determined by the Wyoming state health
officer after the attack to determine whether the animal has any
disease which may be communicated to humans. Home quarantine
may be allowed as determined by the animal control officer or the
county sheriff if the animal's owner or custodian presents a valid
rabies vaccination certificate showing the animal has been
vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian. The costs of
impoundment, quarantine and testing shall be paid by the owner or
custodian of the animal. Any animal which attacks any person in a
vicious manner may be destroyed or the owner or custodian of the
animal may be fined not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00),
or both. Proof of the fact that the animal has bitten or attacked any
person at any place where a person is legally entitled to be is
evidence that the animal is vicious within the meaning of this
section. A copy of any animal control officer report regarding the
animal bite shall be submitted to the state health officer.
Update to Leash Law:
A dog running at large may be declared a public nuisance.