|
Malpezzi v. Ryan |
In this New York case, the plaintiff brought an action to recover for a dog bite sustained when she was walking on a local bike path. The court noted that it has consistently held, “a plaintiff may not recover for injuries sustained in an attack by a dog unless he or she establishes that the dog had vicious propensities and that its owner knew or should have known of such propensities” Here, defendant and his girlfriend testified, without contradiction, that they did not experience any problems with the dog prior to the incident with Malpezzi. Specifically, each testified that Oreo did not display any act of aggression prior to biting Malpezzi. In opposition, plaintiff primarily relies upon the purportedly vicious nature of the attack, the fact that Oreo allegedly was restrained while on defendant's property and Oreo's specific breed. However, the court observed that where, as here, there is no other evidence even suggesting that defendant knew or should have known of Oreo's allegedly vicious propensities, consideration of the dog's breed is irrelevant. As such, Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
|
|
Mann v. Regan |
The plaintiff (Mann) brought this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained to her face when she was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant (Regan). The incident occurred when the defendant’s dog was being cared for by the plaintiff at her house while the defendant traveled out of state. With regard to defendant's tacit admission challenge, this court found that defendant’s silence in response to her daughter’s statement, “Well, mom, you know he bit you,” was within the trial court’s discretion to admit as a hearsay exception. As to the jury instructions, this court was not persuaded that there is a meaningful distinction between the words “vicious” and “dangerous” as used in the context of an action stemming from a dog bite.
|
|
Mansour v. King County |
King County Animal Control issued an order requiring that Mansour to remove his dog from King County or give her up to be euthanized. On appeal, Mansour argued that the Board hearing violated his due process rights. The court of appeals agreed, finding that in order for Mansour, or any other pet owner, to effectively present his case and rebut the evidence against him, due process requires that he be able to subpoena witnesses and records.
|
|
Marek v. Burmester |
In this New York case, a bicyclist was injured after allegedly being chased and attacked by defendant's two dogs. The plaintiff-bicyclist sued to recover damages for his injuries. The Supreme Court , Putnam County, granted a defense motion for summary judgment, and the bicyclist appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that a genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the dogs' proclivity to chase bicyclists on the roadway and as to whether those actions put others at risk of harm.
|
|
Marshall v. City of Tulsa |
This Oklahoma case centers around a pit bull named Julian, who was being fostered from Tulsa Animal Welfare, a department within the City of Tulsa. The foster went on vacation and left the dog with a pet-sitter named Sarah Marshall. The foster of the dog was under contract with Tulsa Animal Welfare to provide care, but was informed that the dog could be removed at any time and she was not allowed to have others care for the dog without prior approval. The foster needed to go out of town and attempted to contact the Foster Coordinator who did not respond. Ultimately, the foster hired Marshall from Rover.com to care for the dog over the weekend. The dog arrived at Marshall's home and was placed with five other dogs. This caused a fight to break out and Marshall's hand was bitten and fractured in the process of breaking up the fight. Approximately six months later, Marshall sued the City of Tulsa alleging strict liability, common law negligence, and negligence per se. The City filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that Marshall was the owner of the dog at the time of the bite and the trial court granted the City's motion, finding Marshall was an “owner” of dog and could not recover under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and the City did not owe a duty to Marshall. Marshall then filed the instant appeal, alleging that she was not an owner of Julian but only a temporary boarder and that City has the legal right of possession of Julian. This court disagreed, finding that the Tulsa ordinance's definition of "owner" applied to Marshall because she was responsible for Julian's care and maintenance at the time. This does not conflict with state law, as state law contemplates a dog having more than one owner. With regard to Marshall's common law negligence claim, the Court found that the City did not owe Marshall a duty because she was not a foreseeable plaintiff. Merely residing in city limits does not automatically make her a foreseeable plaintiff nor did the City's failure to perform a formal behavior evaluation on Julian. In addition, Marshall was not a foreseeable plaintiff from the foster's placement of Julian with her. In fact, the foster's placement of Julian with Marshall violated the Foster Agreement. The trial court's granting of summary judgment and denial of Marshall's motion for partial summary judgement was affirmed. |
|
McAllister v. Wiegand |
The plaintiff, a 55-year old woman and recent acquaintance of the defendants, was bitten on the cheek by the defendant's bull mastiff dog, resulting in a spreading infection and loss of all her teeth. The plaintiff was an invited guest in the defendant's home where she had been on 3-4 prior occasions. There was a question over whether the incident arose when the plaintiff startled the dog from sleep by petting it while bending over it, or whether the dog had just awakened when it was petted and bit her. The court found that dog and plaintiff were familiar with each other and there was nothing provocative that should have caused the dog to retaliate. Thus according to Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act, where owners are strictly or absolutely liable for their dogs' injuries to others, the defendants were strictly liable to the plaintiff for her injuries.
|
|
McBride v. Orr |
In this New Hampshire case, defendant animal control officer killed plaintiff’s dog believing that it was in pursuit of a deer. Defendant claimed immunity pursuant to a state statute. The Court reversed and remanded for a determination of damages for the plaintiff. The Court went on to state that the purpose of the statute was not to authorize defendant’s killing of plaintiff’s dog when the dog was no longer pursuing the deer.
|
|
McBride v. XYZ Ins. |
In this Louisiana dog bite case, a guest individually and on behalf of child brought an action against the dog owner to recover for bites. The child's bites occurred while the guest and her child were visiting defendant's home after the child had been petting and hugging the dog (a fairly large Chow). The appellate court held that the adult guest's conduct of swatting the dog with a shoe after the dog had released the child's arm was not provocation and the defendant was strictly liable for the injuries. While the district court reasoned that the guest failed to use reasonable caution in reading the warning signs and provoked the dog by striking him after he had already released the child, this court found that the guest and her children entered the yard through the house, and she did not notice the signs. Moreover, both witnesses testified that events unfolded very fast; the record persuaded the court that Ms. McBride's conduct in swatting Smokey with a shoe was not an intentional provocation but a natural and inevitable reaction to seeing her child's arm in the dog's jaws.
|
|
McNeely v. U.S. |
Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act. On appeal, t
he Court of Appeals, held that the
Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was
required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the
prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions.
|
|
MD - Bite - Maryland Dangerous Dog Laws |
This Maryland statute outlines what is a "Dangerous dog." As defined by statute, it is a dog that, without provocation, has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person, or it is a potentially dangerous dog that bites a person, when not on its owner's real property, kills or inflicts severe injury on a domestic animal, or attacks without provocation. An owner of a dangerous dog must keep the dog securely enclosed on his or her property or must muzzle and restrain the dog. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500. |
