Delaware

Summary: This Delaware statutory section comprises the state's "pet warranty" laws. Purchasers receive a statement of the dog's breed and any registration information when buying pets from a retail pet store under the law. Sellers are required to disclose any known disease or illness at the time of sale. Further, sellers must provide the following written statement when selling a registered pet: "A pedigree or a registration does not assure proper breeding condition, health, quality or claims to lineage." Buyers may receive a refund or replacement, or have veterinary expenses reimbursed by a seller where a dog becomes ill or dies within 20 days of purchase (or within two years for a congenital disorder).

Summary: The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

Summary: This Delaware law requires a permit to possess, sell, or import any non-native wild animal. No such permits will be granted for non-native venomous snakes.

Summary: Delaware law makes it a Class A environmental misdemeanor to disturb or damage the nest or eggs of a bald eagle or to kill or possess a bald eagle. It is also prohibited to barter and trade in bald eagles or their parts.

Summary: Delaware prohibits the importation, transportation, possession, or sale of any part, hide or an endangered species of fish or wildlife. Delaware also prohibits the intent to import, transport, or sell any part or hide of an endangered species. The only lawful way to take an endangered species is by a license or permit from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and violation of this statute is a class A environmental misdemeanor.

Summary: Dogs are considered personal property in Delaware.

Summary: In Delaware, a person is guilty of the unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 2nd degree if the person knowingly or recklessly sells, barters or offers for sale or barter, the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat. The unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 2nd degree is a class B misdemeanor. A person is guilty of the unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 1st degree if the person knowingly or recklessly sells, barters or offers for sale or barter, the flesh of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the flesh of a domestic dog or cat. The unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Summary:

In Newark, Delaware, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse on the city's sidewalks, but may ride a horse on a city street's bicycle path. Additionally, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse in a reckless, disorderly, or careless manner through or over any of the streets or private property in the city. Penalties for violating these provisions are provided.

Summary:

Vernon Thompson appeals from a Superior Court order reversing a decision and order of the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) after Thompson was denied access to defendant's casino because Thompson insisted that his dog accompany him, but refused to answer the officials' inquiries about what his alleged support animal had been trained to perform. The DHRC determined that by denying access, Dover Downs had unlawfully discriminated against Thompson in violation of the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law. The Supreme Court here agreed with the Superior Court in reversing the DHRC. It found that Dover Downs' personnel were entitled to ask Thompson about his dog's training. Since Thompson refused to answer these questions, there is no rational basis to conclude that Dover Downs' refusal to admit Thompson accompanied was pretextual.

Summary:

In this Delaware case, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's horse, alleged to have been caused by the negligent driving by the defendant of his team. This resulted in a head-on collision, which caused the death of the horse days after. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, the court held that if the jury believed from the evidence presented that the defendant was driving without ordinary care, the verdict should stand for the plaintiff.