Dangerous Dog

Displaying 151 - 160 of 581
Titlesort descending Summary
Danielson v. Cnty. of Humboldt Appellant Candis Danielson was seriously injured by dogs owned by Donald Mehrtens on his property. The injuries were so severe that she lost the lower half of her right leg and sustained damage to her other leg and hand. After Danielson was injured, Mehrtens surrendered both dogs to Humboldt County, which resulted in them being declared vicious and euthanized. Mehrtens was also barred from owning dogs for three years. She filed this action for damages against numerous parties, including Mehrtens and the County of Humboldt (Humboldt County or County). The County demurred. This appeal concerns solely the cause of action against the County for its alleged failure to perform a mandatory duty. This court first noted the record demonstrated Mehrtens had at least five different incidents over more than ten years that involved either an attack by his dogs or a report to animal control (including reports on biting, failure to license, and failure to vaccinate). When Dainelson was attacked by Mehrtens dogs in 2021, she argued that the County was liable for her injuries because it failed to perform mandatory duties imposed by the Humboldt County Code like impoundment and euthanasia of dogs that are unvaccinated, unlicensed, and dangerous. The County contended that there is no mandatory duty under the county code, to which the lower court agreed.This court found that the Government Claims Act provides immunity to public entities and employees for legislative action or discretionary law enforcement activity as opposed to mandatory duties. Here, the county ordinance did not impose a mandatory duty for the officer to petition for a hearing after one of Mehrtens' dogs had bitten a neighbor months earlier. In addition, the officer did not have a mandatory duty to impound the dogs due for licensing and rabies vaccination concerns. Finally, the dangerous dog ordinances also did not mandate seizing or impounding the dogs. Within the compulsory rabies vaccination code, the county did not impose a mandatory duty to impound unvaccinated dogs that had bitten someone. The use of the term "shall" in section 547-8 only applied after officer exercised his or her discretion in conducting an investigation. Similarly, the use of the term "shall" in two instances of the chapter on rabies vaccination did not create a mandatory duty because the decision of whether to impound a dog at all was discretionary. While the court "sympathize[d] with her desire to be compensated for her injuries," the failure to identify a law that created "a mandatory duty which was breached by the County" does not exist here. The lower court was affirmed.
Davis v. Animal Control–City of Evansville


Dog attack victim sued city and its animal control department, seeking damages for injuries he sustained from a dog attack in his neighborhood. The victim claimed that the city failed to enforce its animal control ordinance. The Supreme Court held that city and its animal control department had law enforcement immunity because the Tort Claims Act provided immunity to governmental entities for any loss due to failure to enforce a law.
Davis v. Gaschler


In this California case, plaintiff noticed two women in the process of assisting an injured dog, which was owned by defendants, while driving down the road. Plaintiff, an experienced dog breeder and handler, assisted the women and was bitten by plaintiff's dog. The dog had not been vaccinated for rabies, and plaintiff was required to undergo antirabies treatment. Plaintiff sought appeal of the lower court's granting of summary judgment for the defendant. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that defendants had the burden to establish that this was a case of primary assumption of the risk-where, by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, defendants owed no legal duty to plaintiff. The court held that the complaint alleged facts sufficient to impose a duty on the part of defendants, based on allegations that they owned and negligently controlled the dog that bit plaintiff.
Davison v. Berg Deborah Davison volunteered at her local Humane Society to help take care of a dog park. Three years later, Rebecca Berg’s dog who was chasing other dogs collided with Davison. Davison suffered a broken leg that required extensive medical care. Davison then filed an action against Berg under a Florida statute that “imposes liability on dog owners for damage their dogs cause to other persons and animals.” The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Berg for two reasons. The first reason was that the signs outside of the park sufficiently warned Davison of the risks of injury inside. The second reason was that Davison essentially consented to the risk of potential injuries by being a volunteer for the dog park. On appeal, this court stated that the Florida statute was a strict liability statute that makes an owner the insurer of their dog’s conduct. The only defense to the statute is for an owner to display in a prominent place on his or her premises a sign that includes the words “Bad Dog.” Berg presented evidence that the park had two signs prominently displayed at the entrance to the park with the title “Dog Park Rules.” The two signs listed rules for entrance to the dog park. One of these rules stated that park use is at the dog owner’s risk. Another rule stated that rough play and chasing were not allowed if any dogs or owners were uncomfortable with that behavior. The last rule stated that visitors enter at their own risk. Even though Davison entered the park at her own risk, the purpose of the sign requirement in the statute was to give notice that a bad dog is on the premises. The Court found that the trial court erred in finding that the signs at the dog park were sufficiently equivalent to “Bad Dog” signs to preclude liability under the Florida statute. The trial court also found that by virtue of Davison volunteering at the dog park, she was aware that she could be injured during the course of her work and that she signed a volunteer application form that acknowledged that she could be exposed to “bites, scratches, and other injuries.” Davison had also witnessed a prior collision between a dog and an individual that resulted in a broken leg. After witnessing that, Davison began to warn others at the Humane Society about the dangers of being inside the dog park with dogs chasing each other. The Court held that even though there may be evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Davison consented to the risk of injury, “an actual consent or assumption of the risk defense cannot bar liability.” The Court reversed the trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of Berg.
DC - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws and Dangerous Dog Provision These District of Columbia statutes make up the dog laws for the District. Included among the provisions are definitions, animal control and at large provisions, and vaccinations/licensing regulations. With regard to dangerous dogs, the term "dangerous animal" means an animal that because of specific training or demonstrated behavior threatens the health or safety of the public. The Mayor may impound any animal at large or any dangerous animal. If a dog injures a person while at large, lack of knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity standing alone shall not absolve the owner from a finding of negligence.
DC - Dogs - § 22-1311. Allowing dogs to go at large. The following District of Columbia statute prohibits dogs that the owner knows to be fierce or dangerous, to the danger or annoyance of the inhabitants, from running at large; it also prohibits female dogs in heat to run at large.
DE - Dangerous - Delaware Dangerous Dog Laws These Delaware statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog laws. Among the provisions includes the mandatory seizure of dogs who have chased or pursued persons on bicycles twice in a twelve-month period or those that have killed or inflicted serious injury on people or other domestic animals. However, no dog shall be considered dangerous or potentially dangerous if a person was, at the time the injury was sustained, committing criminal trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. An owner who violates the provisions regarding ownership of dangerous dogs faces graduated fines based on the conduct at issue.
DE - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws These statutes comprise Delaware's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning hunting field trials, and the dangerous dog subchapter.
DE - Ordinances - Local ordinances (dogs) [Repealed in 20210]. This Delaware statutes provides that nothing shall prevent a local municipality from enacting measures or a program for the control of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs.
DE - Rabies - Subchapter I. Rabies Control in Animal and Human Populations The purpose of this chapter is to control and suppress the spread of rabies among the domestic and wild animal populations of Delaware. Any person owning a dog 6 months of age or older in this State shall have that dog vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian. Any person owning a cat 6 months of age or older in this State shall have the cat vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian. Any person owning a ferret 6 months of age or older in this State shall have the ferret vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian.

Pages