|
CO - Dangerous Dog- Article 9. Offenses Against Public Peace, Order, and Decency. |
This Colorado statute defines a "dangerous dog" as one that has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or domestic animal; or has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animal; or has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting as described by statute. Owners found guilty under the provisions will be subject to misdemeanor penalties if their dogs cause bodily injury or felonies if their dogs cause the death of a person. Section 35-42-115 mandates that the bureau create a a statewide dangerous dog registry consisting of a database of information concerning microchip types and placement by veterinarians and licensed shelters in dangerous dogs. |
|
CO - Dog Bite - Civil actions against dog owners. |
This 2005 Colorado law makes a dog owner strictly liable for dog bites only if the victim of the bite suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property 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. Further, the victim is entitled to recover only economic damages (as opposed to noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc.) in a civil suit against the dog owner. Also, the statute provides that an owner is not liable where the victim is unlawfully on public or private property; where the victim is on the owner's property and the the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating "no trespassing" or "beware of dog"; where the victim has clearly provoked the dog; where the victim 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 where 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. |
|
CO - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Colorado statutes represent the state's dog laws. There are provisions regarding civil actions against dog owners for dog bites, rabies control, animal control and licensing, and pertinent wildlife regulations, such as a general ban on harassing wildlife and destroying dens or nests. However, there is an exception making it permissible to take wildlife when it is causing excessive damage to property. |
|
CO - Ordinances - Pet animal control and licensing |
This Colorado statute states that the board of county commissioners of any county may adopt a resolution for the control and licensing of dogs. These regulations may require licensing of dogs by owners, require that dogs and other pet animals be under control at all times and define "control," define "vicious dog" and "vicious animal," establish a dog pound, or other animal holding facility, provide for the impoundment of animals which are vicious, not under control, or otherwise not in conformity with the resolutions, and establish such other reasonable regulations and restrictions for the control of dogs and other pet animals. |
|
CO - Police Training - Dog Protection Act |
This Colorado statute requires local law enforcement to undergo training in order to prevent the shooting of dogs by local law enforcement officers in the line of duty. Specifically, this statute aims to assist in training officers to differentiate between threatening and non-threatening dog behaviors, as well as to employ non-lethal means whenever possible. |
|
Coballes v. Spokane County |
In this case, the Washington Court of Appeals determined the appellant had a statutory right to appeal a county board’s dangerous dog declaration because the board had acted within its ordinary and usual duties. The availability of the right to appeal, however, foreclosed a statutory and constitutional writ of review/writ of certiorari. Furthermore, given the court’s finding that a prior proceeding constituted an appeal as of right, the appellant’s dangerous dog declaration could only be appealed under a discretionary review. The court therefore granted the appellant leave to file a motion for discretionary review.
|
|
Coe v. Lewsader |
In this case, Ryan and Hillary Coe filed suit against Eric and Trish Lewsader for damages resulting from an accident involving the Lewsader’s dog. Ryan Coe was driving his motorcycle while intoxicated on a public highway when he hit the Lewsader’s dog that was lying in the middle of the street. Coe suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and filed suit against the Lewsader’s according to Section 16 of the Illinois Animal Attacks or Injuries statute. According to the Act, “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.” In order to be awarded damages under the Act, the Coe’s needed to establish “some overt act” of the Lewsader’s dog . As a result, the question before the court was whether or not the Lewsader’s dog was acting overtly when it was lying in the middle of the street at the time of the accident. Ultimately, the court held that the dog was not acting overtly by lying in the middle of the street. Also, the court rejected the Coe’s argument that the dog had acted overtly when it walked into the street before lying down. The court rejected this argument because the overt act needed to take place at the time of the injury, not before. As a result, the court found that the Lewsader’s were not liable for civil damages under the Act because the dog had not acted overtly at the time of accident and therefore the Act did not apply in this situation. |
|
Cohen v. Kretzschmar |
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the owners established that their dog did not have a propensity to jump up on people, and that they were not negligent in the manner in which they handled the dog at the time of the alleged accident. The judgment granting defendants' motion for summary judgment was affirmed.
|
|
Cole v. Hubanks |
Police officer was injured by homeowner's dog and sued for damages. The Supreme Court held that public policy does not dictate extending the firefighter's rule to the police officer, and therefore, that the officer could sue for injuries received as a result of the bite. Reversed and remanded.
|
|
Collier v. Zambito |
Infant child attacked and bit by dog when he was a guest in the owner's home. After defenses motion for summary judgment was denied, the Appellate Court reversed, and this court affirms.
|
