|
Nava v. McMillan |
In a personal injury action brought by a pedestrian who was hit by an automobile when she stepped into a street, the trial court dismissed the complaint against occupiers of land who maintained fenced dogs, which plaintiff alleged frightened her, causing her to step into the street. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the complaint failed to set forth facts giving rise to tortious liability on the part of the owners of fenced dogs, either on the theory of simple negligence or strict liability.
|
|
NC - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 67. Dogs. Article 1A. Dangerous Dogs. |
These North Carolina statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog and dog bite laws. Among the provisions include misdemeanor penalties for an owner if a dangerous dog attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and strict liability in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal. Another statute provides that any person brought to receive medical treatment for a dog bite must report it to the local health director and the animal must be confined for a ten day observation period. |
|
NC - Dangerous Dogs - Chapter 67. Dogs |
This North Carolina statute provides that any dog which trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear on any wildlife refuge, sanctuary or management area designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, during the closed season for hunting with dogs on such refuge or management area, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and any wildlife protector may destroy it by humane method. Any unmuzzled dog running at large in such area shall be impounded and notice shall be published in some newspaper published in the county for two successive weeks. If no owner comes to claim the dog, it may be destroyed within 15 days after publication. |
|
NC - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These North Carolina statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include pet shop provisions, rabies vaccination laws, and the dangerous dog chapter. |
|
NC - Edenton - Breed - Vicious Dogs |
In Edenton, North Carolina, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any potentially vicious dog, which includes pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Chows. There are exceptions for dogs registered on the effective date, provided that the owner uses a leash and muzzle on the dog, keeps it properly confined, posts “Beware of Dog” signs, takes identification photographs, sterilizes the dog, and complies with reporting requirements. Failure to comply may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog.
|
|
NC - Ordinances - § 67-4.5. Local ordinances |
This North Carolina statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog laws shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for control of dangerous dogs. |
|
ND - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These statutes comprise North Dakota's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal powers to regulate dogs, rabies, control laws, provisions that define dogs as a public nuisance, and laws concerning dogs that harass big game or livestock. |
|
NE - Dangerous - ARTICLE 6. DOGS AND CATS. (B) DANGEROUS DOGS. |
These Nebraska statutes outline the state's dangerous dog laws. Among the provisions include a requirement that the dog must be restrained when not in a secure enclosure on the owner's property. There is also a requirement that owners must post warning signs on the property notifying people that a dangerous dog is present. If a dangerous dog bites a person, the owner can be found guilty of a Class IV misdemeanor and the dog will be destroyed. |
|
NE - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Nebraska statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the municipal authority to regulate dogs at large and licensing, rabies control, and dangerous dog laws. The set of laws relating to commercial pet dealers and breeders is also provided. |
|
Nelson v. Lewis |
Toddler accidentally stepped on the tail of the owner's dog, and the dog responded by scratching her eye, causing permanent damage to the tear duct. The toddler sought damages under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 8, para. 366 (1973), arguing that her unintentional act did not constitute provocation. The court held that provocation under the statute referred to both intentional or unintentional acts. Because the dog was provoked by the unintentional act, he did not react viciously.
|
