|
Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-Dog Dilemma |
Part I of this Note examines the growing problem of dog bites and dog-bite related deaths ("canine homicides") through statistical analysis. This part also provides a description and history of pit bull terriers, currently the most frequent target of breed-based laws. Part II examines common criticisms and concerns that accompany each type of law, and provides an overview of additional legislation that has been enacted to reduce the number of dog bites and attacks. Finally, Part III concludes that breed-specific legislation is an ineffective and inefficient means of combating the dog-bite epidemic. This part argues that dangerous-dog laws are a more effective, albeit imperfect, solution to the problem and proposes non-breed-based supplemental legislation that can be enacted to reduce the public threat posed by dangerous dogs.
|
|
AZ - Breed - § 20-1510. Homeowner's or renter's insurance; dog breeds |
This 2022 Arizona law states that the breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for any of the following purposes: (1) underwriting or actuarial processes for determining risk, liability or actual or potential losses related to claims involving dogs under a policy of insurance; or (2) questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information regarding ownership or possession of a dog or the presence of a dog on premises insured or to be insured under a policy of insurance. |
|
Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court |
The primary issue in this Kentucky case is whether a Bracken County ordinance which bans the possession of pit bull terriers is inconsistent with the state law that addresses dangerous dogs. The lower court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the ban of breed was a legitimate exercise of police power and did not deny dog owners procedural due process. Further, the ordinance did not infringe on constitutional right to travel because traveling with a pet is not a fundamental right and the ordinance does not treat residents and non-residents differently.
|
|
Bolivia - Dangerous dog - LEY Nº 553 , 2014 |
This law contains the legal framework that establishes the minimum legal conditions for the possession of dangerous dogs. The purpose of this law is to prevent aggression against people and their property by prohibiting the possession of dangerous dogs. Possession of dangerous dogs is allowed with prior authorization, obtaining a license, and compliance with safety measures established in this law.
|
|
Bowden v. Monroe County Commission |
The Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her late husband, filed a complaint after he was attacked and killed by American Pit Bull Terriers while taking a walk near his home. The Plaintiff filed against the Defendants, Monroe County, the County Dog Warden Ms. Green, and other defendants, alleging, negligence in performing their statutory duties by allowing vicious dogs to remain at large, and wrongful death. The Plaintiff also sought punitive damages. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and asserted a defense based upon the public duty doctrine. The Circuit Court, Monroe County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit Court and remanded. The Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed for determining whether a special relationship existed between the county and the victim such as whether: (1) the dog warden assumed an affirmative duty to act on the victim's behalf, (2) the dog warden was aware that inaction could lead to harm, (3) the dog warden had direct contact with the victim's wife regarding vicious nature of dogs; and (4) the victim's wife justifiably relied on assurances from dog warden. |
|
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) |
|
|
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) Table of Related Cases |
This table provides links to cases involving BSL (breed-specific legislation).
|
|
Breed Specific Legislation: The Gap in Emergency Preparedness Provisions for Household Pets |
This article examines the gap in the legislation and explore how this dilemma has come to pass. First it explores what breed-specific legislation actually is, and how it has developed in modern society. Next, this article addresses the scope of current emergency preparedness statutes. Finally, this article attempts to address the issues that are bound to arise in the future.
|
|
Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice and Ineffective Policy |
This comment examines breed specific legislation--the unfortunate attempt of legislatures throughout the country to address the valid concern over vicious dog attacks by prohibiting or strictly regulating entire breeds, most often pitbulls. To prevent the tragedies that can occur when a dog attacks a human, legislation must take aim at the heart of the problem, the human owners that allow, through negligence or intentional mistreatment and training, these attacks to occur.
|
|
Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States |
The author discusses the current state of breed-specific legislation (BSL) in several states, examining the efficacy of each law and the application to commonly assumed "dangerous breeds" of dogs. Upon investigation, the author concludes BSL is not an effective means of regulating canine behavior in communities.
|
