|
Frank v. Animal Haven, Inc. |
Plaintiff was bitten by the dog that she adopted from Animal Haven, Inc. and sued that entity for personal injuries stemming from the bite. In affirming the decision to dismiss the complaint, this court noted that the adopting parties signed a contract a the time of adoption where they undertook a "lifetime commitment" for the responsible care of the dog. While the contract stipulated that Animal Haven had the right to have the dog returned if the plaintiff breached the contract, this did not reserve a right of ownership of the dog. Further, the contract also explicitly relieved Animal Haven of liability once the dog was in the possession of the adoptive parties.
|
|
Frequently Asked Questions on Local Dog Laws |
This article answers some typical questions relating to local dog laws.
|
|
GA - Avondale Estates - Chapter 1: General Provisions & Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl |
In Avondale Estates, Georgia, animal fighting is not only prohibited by ordinance, but an animal trained for fighting is also considered a public nuisance, and an abused and dangerous animal. This ordinance provides provisions for each of the respective categories, as well as penalties for the violations. Notably, the city will not respond to a citizen's compliant about a violation of this chapter if the citizen chooses to remain anonymous.
|
|
GA - Bite - § 51-2-6. Dogs, liability of owner or keeper for injuries to livestock |
This Georgia statute represents the state's relevant dog bite strict liability law. While the law imposes strict liability for injury to a person, the dog (or other animal) must first be considered "vicious" or "dangerous," which can be as simple as showing the animal was required to be leashed per city ordinance. Second, the animal must be at large by the careless management of the owner. Finally, the person injured must not have provoked the animal into attacking him or her. |
|
GA - Dangerous Dog Ordinances - Chapter 8. Dogs |
This Georgia statute states the standards and requirements for the control of dangerous dogs and vicious dogs; this statute also proscribes penalties for violations of these standards and requirements. For instance, a violation of this article is a misdemeanor of high and aggravated nature; repeated violations of this article is a felony. |
|
GA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Georgia statutes comprise the state's dog laws and the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law." Among the provisions of the Responsible Dog Ownership Law include a requirement for registration of dangerous dogs as well as the necessity of such owner to carry at least $50,000 in liability insurance. Owners of these dogs who do not comply with these and other provisions may have their dogs confiscated and destroyed. Any person who violates this article is guilty of a misdemeanor. |
|
Galgano v. Town of North Hempstead |
In this New York Case, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for personal injuries and damages due to a dog bite. The court reaffirmed New York law that to recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's propensities. The fact that the subject dog was brought to the animal shelter because another dog in the owner's household did not get along with it is not indicative that it had vicious propensities.
|
|
Gannon v. Conti |
In 2008, defendants' dog allegedly left their yard by passing through an underground "invisible" electrical fence system and bit the plaintiff who was sitting on her bike on the adjacent property. Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages for injury based on common-law negligence and strict liability. The lower court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the fact that they had no prior knowledge of the dog's alleged vicious propensities. On appeal, the court found that even defendants' own depositions raised an issue of fact as to notice of their dog's alleged vicious propensities. Specifically, one defendant admitted he used a "bite sleeve" obtained through his employment as a police officer to encourage the dog to bite and hold a perpetrator's arm. This evidence that the dog was encouraged to leap up and bite a human arm created a sufficient issue of fact for the jury despite defendants' claim that this was a "play activity" for the dog.
|
|
Georgia's "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" Summary (2012) |
On May 3, 2012 Governor Deal signed the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law", OCGA 4-8-1 through 4-8-33, legislation sponsored by Rep. Gene Maddox to protect the general public and their pets from injuries and death caused by dog attacks. The law was meant to provide “minimal” standards across the state but does not prevent counties or cities from adding more restrictive requirements & stringent penalties. This law clarifies classifications of dogs subsequent to the event and outlines the responsibilities of owners and the consequences of non-compliance with the requirements. The effective date is July 1, 2012.
|
|
Georgia’s "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" Summary |
This document provides of summary of the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" (RDOA) of Georgia, signed into law by Governor Deal in 2012. |
