Dogs

Summary: 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.

Summary: This Minnesota Supreme Court case considers whether sovereign immunity shields the State Patrol from liability after a police canine injured a person in an unprovoked attack. This case stems from an incident that occurred in 2019, where a state trooper brought his patrol vehicle in for service at a car dealership accompanied by his State Patrol canine. During the visit, the canine committed an unprovoked attack on Berrier, who suffered serious and permanent injuries. Berrier sued the State Patrol, claiming her injuries were "a direct and proximate result" of the State Patrol's negligence. After some procedural issues, the district court denied the State Patrol's motion to dismiss, finding that Berrier sufficiently pleaded her claim under the state's strict liability dog-bite statute. In doing so, the court observed that the law imposes strict liability on "the owner" of a dog with a "clear intent to include governmental entities . . ." The court of appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded the case. Berrier then petitioned this court for review. On appeal here, the State Patrol questions whether Berrier adequately pleaded her dog-bite claim and whether the State Patrol has sovereign immunity even not when expressly referenced. The Supreme Court first noted there is a rigorous standard in Minnesota for waiving sovereign immunity where the statute as a whole must be read and interpreted. Previous caselaw held that the dog-bite statute applies to municipal owners of police dogs but did not touch on State actors. However, the court noted that the legislature could have amended the dog-bite law to exclude police dogs after that 2005 case, but did not do so. Further, the language of the dog-bite statute is broadly inclusive and has previously been interpreted broadly to effect the goals of the law (e.g., ensuring a claimant's full recovery). The Court was not swayed by the State's concerns of exposure to wide-ranging liability since only three agencies have active canine programs with few canines actually trained in apprehension or tracking of suspects. The court of appeals decision was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary: In this Vermont case, the defendant appealed a criminal division order granting the State's motion for civil forfeiture of his dog "Chad" based on a finding that he subjected the dog to cruelty. The first incident occurred in April 2022, where the defendant left Chad, a Siberian husky, locked in his vehicle on an "unseasonably warm" day where temperatures were in the high nineties. Two subsequent incidents occurred in the following months, culminating in defendant's arrest and a requirement that defendant surrender his dog. On appeal, defendant argues that the criminal division lacked jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding since Chad was not seized under 13 V.S.A. § 354, that the State failed to prove animal cruelty by clear and convincing evidence under 13 V.S.A. § 352. Defendant also argued that the criminal division erred in admitting lay witness testimony (the police officer) regarding the internal temperature of defendant's car under Vermont Rule of Evidence 701. The Supreme Court found that the dog owner's challenge to the dog's seizure was not an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. Since defendant conceded it was not raised below, the court held that it could not be raised for the first time on appeal. As to defendant's next argument that there was insufficient evidence, this court found clear and convincing evidence that established animal cruelty to warrant forfeiture, including the fact Chad had no access to water, the outside temperature was high, and the officer observed early stages of heat exhaustion in the dog. Finally, even if admitting the lay testimony of the officer as to internal car temperature was error, it "falls within the purview of harmless error" since the record provided an unchallenged temperature reading for that day and the officer observed closed windows and distress from the dog. The case was affirmed.

Summary: This overview discusses the emergence of the concept of the “multispecies family” in Latin American courts. It gives a brief explanation of the fundamental information that gave rise to the concept of the recognition of the multispecies family including its ties to both national and universal human rights. This paper then discusses and analyzes a compilation of some of the most landmark cases regarding multispecies families

Summary: “Objeto. Crear e implementar el Programa Nacional de Esterilización Quirúrgica de Gatos y Perros como método ético de control de la natalidad, con el fin de reducir los fenómenos de maltrato, sufrimiento e indigencia animal, propender por un ambiente sano, y mitigar los riesgo para la salud pública asociados a ia presencia de animales en las calles.”

Summary: This law creates and implements the National Program of Surgical Sterilization of Cats and Dogs as an ethical method of birth control, in order to reduce the phenomena of mistreatment, suffering, and animal indigence, to promote a healthy environment, and to mitigate the risks to public health associated with the presence of animals in the streets.

Summary: Esta ley crea un programa nacional de esterilización quirúrgica de perros y gatos como método ético de control seguro de la natalidad para reducir los riesgos para la salud pública asociados a los animales vagabundos, así como para reducir la cantidad de animales abandonados, que sufren y son maltratados. El Congreso busca proteger la fauna salvaje mediante este decreto. Las instituciones que realizan la esterilización deben llevar un registro e identificar a los animales que han sido esterilizados, así como prestar sus servicios "sin barreras" a las comunidades que, de otro modo, no podrían esterilizar a sus animales. El Congreso debatió los problemas de bienestar animal relacionados con el abandono y el maltrato, y que al disminuir el número de animales nacidos, se puede dañar a menos animales. Además, se ha demostrado que la esterilización aumenta la calidad y esperanza de vida de los animales esterilizados.

Summary: Este reglamento se aprueba mediante el Decreto Supremo No. 001-2017-MIMP. Su proposito es establecer las disposiciones de la Ley No. 29830, modificada por la Ley No. 30433, que promueve y regula el uso de perros guía por personas con discapacidad visual. Entre otras disposiciones, esta normativa designa al Consejo Nacional para la Integración de la Persona con Discapacidad (CONADIS) como la autoridad responsable de implementar y definir los parámetros para el registro de perros guía en el Registro Nacional de Perros Guía. Además, establece que a las personas con discapacidad visual y sus perros guía se les debe permitir ingresar y permanecer en su lugar de trabajo, estudio y cualquier otro establecimiento en igualdad de condiciones, independientemente de si el lugar es público o privado, y sin costo adicional por llevar al perro. Esto incluye el acceso al transporte público.

Summary: This regulation is approved through Supreme Decree No. 001-2017-MIMP. The purpose of this regulation is to establish the provisions of Law No. 29830, as amended by Law No. 30433, which promotes and regulates the use of guide dogs by visually impaired persons. Among other provisions, this regulation designates the National Council for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities (CONADIS) as the authority responsible for implementing and outlining the parameters for registering guide dogs in the National Guide Dog Registry. Additionally, it mandates that visually impaired persons and their guide dogs allowed to enter and remain in their place of work, study, and any other business on equal terms, regardless of whether the establishment is public or private, and without any additional cost for bringing the dog. This includes access to public transportation as well.

Summary: Las partes mantuvieron una relación durante la cual adoptaron dos perros, Igor y Bambú. Con el tiempo, la pareja se separó y discreparon sobre qué hacer respecto a la custodia y propiedad de los perros. El demandante interpuso esta demanda después de que la demandada le prohibiera ver a los perros y solicitó que se le reconociera como copropietario con todos los derechos sobre los mismos. El tribunal aplicó una prueba de tres partes para poner fin al goce gratuito de los perros por parte de la demandada, en la que decidió que el demandante tenía derecho a la propiedad en comunidad con la demandada. Para ello, el tribunal analizó aspectos del lugar que ocupan los perros en el contexto jurídico, como su condición de propiedad y los únicos vínculos afectivos que se establecen entre el propietario y la mascota.