|
NH - Pet Shop - Chapter Agr 1700. Transfer of Animals and Birds. |
These rules establish standards for the regulation of animal health and welfare that are consistent with the pattern established in statute by the Legislature. Animal health regulation focuses on those conditions that pose a threat to public health, that would require regulatory intervention to protect the economy of the state, or both. |
|
NH - Trusts - Chapter 564-B. Uniform Trust Code. |
This statute represents New Hampshire's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. |
|
NH - Veterinary - Chapter 332-B. New Hampshire Veterinary Practice Act. |
These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
|
NH - Wildlife Damage - Wildlife Damage Control |
These New Hampshire statutes establish a wildlife damages control program to respond to conflicts between wildlife and people. A person who suffers loss or damage to livestock, bees, orchards or growing crops, by bear or mountain lion, may receive compensation from the state. The statutes allow a person to kill any unprotected bird or wild animal doing damage to poultry, crops, domestic animals on the person's property. |
|
NH - Wolf - Chapter 207. General Provisions as to Fish and Game. |
This New Hampshire statute prohibits the introduction of wolf populations into the state by a person or state agency. |
|
Nichols v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. |
A customer brought an action against Lowe's home improvement store to recover for injury sustained when a "wild bird" flew into the back of her head while she was shopping in the gardening area. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in making the premises safe and that the defendant did not warn customers that the birds were a dangerous condition on the premises. In granting the owner's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the store owner did not owe customer a duty under Illinois law to protect her from wild bird attack since attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Further, the store owner was not the "owner" or "keeper" of a "wild bird" within meaning of Illinois Animal Control Act.
|
|
Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels |
During a stay at defendant kennel, the kennel owner's dog tore off plaintiff's dog's left front leg and shoulder blade. Plaintiff's petition sought damages to compensate for the injuries and suffering the dog incurred and the loss of aesthetic intrinsic value of the dog. In upholding the district court's denial of damages for emotional injury and mental suffering, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument for damages based on the intrinsic value of a pet for the negligent injury to the dog.
|
|
Nigro v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc. |
An experienced exercise rider sued the owner of a race track seeking damages for personal injury after the horse she was riding fell on her while crossing a gravel-strewn asphalt road. The Supreme Court held that the rider assumed the risk that the horse might fall by choosing to cross the road despite being aware of the danger. The doctrine of “primary assumption of the risk” applied, and the owner of the premises was not at fault.
|
|
Nikolic v. Seidenberg |
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract.
|
|
NJ - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. |
