dog bite victim representation -...

Dog Bite Victim Representation Assessing Claims and Managing the Unique Challenges of Negotiating and Litigating Dog Bite Cases

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Paul H. Cannon, Simmons and Fletcher, Houston

Todd Berkey, Partner, Law Offices of Edgar Snyder & Associates, Pittsburgh

#1182517

#1479418

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO

DEFENDANTS, DOG OWNERS

1. State the following as to each defendant:

a. Full names;

b. Any other names you have used or been known by;

c. Marital status at the time of the incident;

d. Present marital status;

e. Present home address;

f. Occupation at the time of the incident:

g. Present occupation;

h. Employer(s) at the time of the incident;

i. Present employer(s);

j. Dates of birth.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

2. State the identity of the person/persons who owned the property at [location] at

the time of the incident.

ANSWER:

3. State whether you rented or leased the property at [location] at the time of the

incident.

ANSWER:

4. If you rented or leased the property at [location] from any person(s) for all or part

of the two (2) year period up to and including [date], state the name(s) and all current or past

addresses of the landlord(s) of the property and/or any leasing agent or management company

which were used in connection with the rental.

ANSWER:

5. State specifically the portions of the premises that were leased or rented.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

6. Attach hereto a copy of all lease agreements between the defendants and their

landlord for a two (2) year period up to and including [date].

ANSWER:

7. State whether there were any verbal agreements between defendants and their

landlord other than those contained in the written lease, and if so, state the following:

a. Any and all provisions that were not in writing;

b. The dates that any and all such provisions went into effect;

c. How the provisions were communicated.

ANSWER:

8. State whether you had any homeowners or renters insurance at the time of the

incident on [date]. If you did have insurance, please state:

a. The name of the insurance company;

#1182517

#1479418

b. The policy number;

c. The effective dates of the policy;

d. The amounts of all coverage, including premises liability;

e. Attach a copy of the policy, including the policy declarations, that was in

effect at the time of plaintiff's incident.

ANSWER:

9. State the names and addresses of all eye witnesses to the incident in question

known to the defendants, defendants’ attorney, agents, investigators or other representatives.

ANSWER:

10. State the names and present addresses of all witnesses who have any knowledge

concerning the facts leading up to or the events immediately preceding the incident in question

which were known to the defendants, defendants’ attorney, agents, investigators and/or other

representatives.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

11. State the names and present addresses of all witnesses who have any knowledge

concerning the facts immediately after or subsequent to the incident in question which are known

to defendants, defendants’ attorney, agent, investigators or other representatives.

ANSWER:

12. Are any of the people listed in the answer to Interrogatories 9, 10 and 11 relatives,

agents, servants, employees or representatives of the defendants? If yes, identify the same.

ANSWER:

13. Please state whether the defendants, defendants’ agents, attorneys or

representatives have any statements in any form (i.e. oral, typed, written, taped, transcribed, etc.)

in their possession from any person, including the plaintiffs and defendants, who has either

witnessed this incident or has any knowledge about plaintiff’s claims, this incident, Plaintiff's

damages or any defense to this action.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

14. As to each statement referred to in Answer to Interrogatory 13, please state:

a. Whether the statement is in question and answer or in narrative form;

b. Whether the person giving it received a copy of said statement;

c. Whether the statement was signed;

d. If the statement was not signed, the method by which it was adopted or

approved;

e. The name and present address of the person by whom the statement was

taken;

f. When and where the statement was taken; and

g. Attach copies of all statements.

ANSWER:

15. List the names and present addresses of all investigators, representatives, or others

who have investigated the incident and/or claim referred to in plaintiffs’ Complaint, including

any and all representatives of [Insurance Company] and/or insurance companies on behalf of

defendants, in regard to either liability or damages. With respect to each such person, state the

following:

a. Employment affiliation at the time of the investigation;

#1182517

#1479418

b. Present employment affiliation;

c. The names and addresses of each and every party whom the person

contacted;

d. The date when contacted;

e. Whether an attempt was made to procure a statement in any form;

f. The results of such attempts;

g. Whether said investigator or representative submitted a report to any other

persons; and

h. If the answer to the preceding sub-interrogatory is in the affirmative,

attach a copy of said report to these answers, if said report is in writing. If

oral, give a summary of said report.

ANSWER:

16. State whether the defendants were at any time the owner or proprietor of the dog

which bit plaintiff on or about [date]. If not, state the name and address of the owner(s) of the

dog that bit plaintiff.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

17. State where said dog was kept or housed at the time the plaintiff was bitten (i.e.

inside, in a certain room, outside, in a certain area, location or designation) and for a period of 3

months prior to the incident.

ANSWER:

18. State the exact location of the dog when it bit plaintiff.

ANSWER:

19. State the names and present addresses of all persons present on the property of the

defendants, including those who were inside the premises, for a one-hour time period before and

after the defendants’ dog bit plaintiff.

ANSWER:

20. State where the dog was housed or kept in the twenty-four (24) hour period prior

to when plaintiff was bitten (in other words, state the whereabouts of the dog for a twenty-four

(24) hour period prior to the occurrence).

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

21. As of [date], was there a dog license for the dog which bit plaintiff? If so, please

state:

a. When that license was obtained;

b. Who obtained that license;

c. The last time prior to plaintiff's incident that the defendants obtained a

license for the dog;

d. From what entity was the license obtained.

ANSWER:

22. Please state whether the dog had ever been registered for any purpose with any

entity, agency or governmental municipality. If so, state:

a. The name and address of the entity/agency;

b. When the dog was last registered with any agency prior to the time the dog

bit the plaintiff;

c. Who registered the dog with the entity/agency;

ANSWER:

23. State the name(s) and current address(es) of the person(s) who was/were

responsible for the direct supervision, care and control of the dog for a twenty-four (24) hour

period prior in time to when the plaintiff was bitten.

#1182517

#1479418

ANSWER:

24. At the time of the incident, state whether said dog was restrained, chained, locked

up, caged or in any other way controlled. If so, state the exact nature as to how the dog was

restrained.

ANSWER:

25. State your version of how this incident occurred. State all facts upon which

defendants support their version of how this incident occurred, and state from what source

defendants received the information and/or facts.

ANSWER:

26. State specifically your version of all events that took place after plaintiff was

bitten up to and including the time that he fell.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

27. State the specific area where plaintiff fell, including a description of the surface

on which he fell.

ANSWER:

28. State whether there were any warnings, warning signs, Beware of Dog signs or

any other type of signage placed on defendants’ property or premises at the time when the

plaintiff was bitten. If so, please describe the exact nature and location of any such signs.

ANSWER:

29. State whether there were any verbal or oral warnings regarding the dog given to

the plaintiff prior in time to when the plaintiff was bitten. If so, set forth the name and address of

each person who issued the warnings, the exact substance of each and every warning, the date

and time of each warning, and the name and address of all persons present when each of the

warnings were issued.

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

30. Please state whether the dog had ever displayed or exhibited any prior vicious

propensities or tendencies. If so, please state:

a. Each and every prior incident when the dog displayed any vicious

propensities or tendencies;

b. All general knowledge which the defendants possessed regarding the dog's

prior vicious propensities or tendencies.

ANSWER:

31. State whether the dog had ever attacked, mauled, bitten, chased or growled at any

other person or in any other way displayed any vicious propensities or tendencies toward any

other person. If so, please state each and every prior occasion when the dog displayed such

propensities or tendencies.

ANSWER:

32. Please state the following regarding the dog:

a. Type (breed);

b. Height;

c. Weight;

d. Color;

e. Age;

#1182517

#1479418

f. Name.

ANSWER:

33. Please state whether the defendants were aware of or ever became aware prior to

the date of the incident that the dog ever exhibited or displayed any vicious propensities or

tendencies or had ever attacked, mauled, bitten, chased or growled at any other person, including

children. If so, please state:

a. Each and every prior incident when the dog displayed any vicious

propensities or tendencies;

b. All general knowledge which the defendants possessed regarding the dog's

prior vicious propensities or tendencies.

ANSWER:

34. Do the defendants or defendants’ agents, servants, employees or representatives

have any photographs or video of the dog which bit the plaintiff? If so, please attach

reproductions of the photographs to the answers to these interrogatories. (Plaintiff will bear the

costs of reproduction of any such photographs).

ANSWER:

#1182517

#1479418

35. Attach hereto any and all written documents between defendants and any housing

agencies, police, or other entities regarding the incident.

ANSWER:

36. Attach hereto the complete investigation of defendants’ insurance carrier’s file

with the exception of those portions which are not discoverable.

ANSWER:

#1480567

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

A and B, husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v.

X and Y, husband and wife; X, individually; Z

BOROUGH; and, Z BOROUGH POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No.

COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION

AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, A and B, husband and wife, by and through their

attorneys, and file the within Complaint in a Civil Action and in support thereof aver the

following:

1. Plaintiffs, A and B, husband and wife, are adult individuals and residents of the

County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a current residence located at

123 Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.

2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs, A and B, were legally married and resided

together as husband and wife.

3. Defendants, X and Y, husband and wife, are adult individuals and residents of the

County of Allegheny and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 456

Your Street, Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 12345.

4. Defendant, X, is an adult individual and a resident of the County of Allegheny

and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known address of 456 Your Street, Anytown,

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 12345.

#1480567

5. Defendant, Z, is a governmental agency and is a borough organized under the

laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has its municipal offices located at

789 Main Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.

6. Defendant, Z Police Department, is a governmental agency and is a borough

police department owned and operated by Defendant, Z, and has its offices located at 123 Main

Street, Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.

7. Defendant, Z, and Defendant, Z Police Department, are local governmental

entities subject to liability in this matter pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).

8. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police

Department, either individually and/or jointly owned a certain Dutch and/or German Shepherd

dog, which dog was a police dog used within the K-9 unit of the Z Police Department.

9. Based on the foregoing allegations, at all times material hereto, Defendants, Z,

and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, was/were the “owners” of said Dutch and/or German

Shepherd dog, as that term is defined by the Pennsylvania Dog Law and specifically 3 P.S. §

459-102 and were subject to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Dog Law as to said Dutch

and/or German Shepherd dog.

10. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, X,

was employed by Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, as a police officer

within the K-9 unit of the Z Police Department.

11. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch

and/or German Shepherd police dog was assigned to Defendant, X, in conjunction with his

official police duties as a K-9 officer.

#1480567


had as part of his job duty and/or responsibility the training of said Dutch and/or German

Shepherd dog for use as a police dog and the continued training of said Dutch and/or German

Shepherd dog for continued use as a police dog.


as part of his job duties and/or responsibilities pursuant to his employment with Defendant, Z,

and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, was responsible for the care, custody, control, and

possession of said police dog at all times.


was acting in the scope of his duties with Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department,

as the trainer, caretaker, and custodian of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog.

15. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, Z,

and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, is/are liable for the careless and/or negligent acts and/or

omissions of Defendant, X, in the performance of his official police duties as the individual who

is responsible for the care, custody, control, and possession of said Dutch and/or German

Shepherd police dog pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).

16. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, were the keepers of said Dutch

and/or German Shepherd dog and said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog resided with

Defendants, X and Y, and was permitted to enter and remain on or about Defendants’ premises

and residence with Defendants’ knowledge, permission, and consent.

17. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, had exclusive possession and

control of and over said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog and were responsible for the care,

custody, control, and restraint of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.

#1480567

18. Based on the foregoing allegations, at all times material hereto, Defendants, X

and Y, were the “owners” of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, as that term is defined by

3 P.S. § 459-102 and were subject to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Dog Law as to said

Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog.

19. The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about March 28, 2011 at or

about 11:00 a.m. at or on Any Street near the intersection of Any Street and Your Street,

Anytown, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 12345.

20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, was a pedestrian on Any Street and was

walking his dog in the vicinity of Defendants’ residence, which is located at or near the

intersection of Any Street and Your Street.

21. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, knowingly caused, allowed,

and/or permitted the above described Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog to be on Defendants’

premises without a leash, chain, or any other type of restraint preventing said dog from exiting

Defendants’ premises.

22. The above-described actions of Defendants, X and Y, constituted a violation of 3

P.S. § 459-305 in that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog was not confined within

Defendants’ premises or secured by means of a collar or chain so that it could not stray beyond

Defendants’ premises.

23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, observed said dog on Defendants’

premises without a leash, chain, or any other type of restraint, and Plaintiff, A, started to turn

around to walk away from Defendants’ residence and premises as a result of seeing said dog

loose on Defendants’ premises.

#1480567

24. At all times material hereto, as Plaintiff, A, was walking on Any Street and was

attempting to turn to walk away from Defendants’ premises, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd

dog ran over and off Defendants’ premises, onto Any Street, in a menacing and aggressive

manner, toward Plaintiff, A, at a high rate of speed.

25. At all times material hereto, as Plaintiff, A, was attempting to walk away from

Defendants’ premises, said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog ran into the left leg of Plaintiff,

A, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground, and further causing Plaintiff to suffer and sustain

serious and possibly permanent injuries, as described more fully herein.


uttered a verbal command to said Dutch and/or German Shepherd police dog in an attempt to

stop the dog in its pursuit of Plaintiff, A; however, said command was ineffective in stopping the

dog, which continued to pursue Plaintiff, A, in the manner described herein.

27. It is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog

was pursuing either Plaintiff, A, directly, in a menacing and aggressive manner and/or was

pursuing the dog of Plaintiff, A, and ran into Plaintiff during that pursuit.

28. It is believed and therefore averred that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog

had a history and/or a propensity of pursuing humans and/or domestic animals without

provocation.

29. It is further believed and therefore averred that as a police dog, said Dutch and/or

German Shepherd dog was specifically trained to pursue human beings and that Defendants, X,

Z, and/or Z Police Department had actual knowledge of this fact.

#1480567

30. The incident described herein constitutes an attack, as that term is defined by 3

P.S. § 459-102, in that said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog deliberately pursued Plaintiff, A,

and/or deliberately pursued the dog of Plaintiff, A.

31. Defendants, Z, and/or Z Police Department, and Defendants, X and Y, as both the

owners and the keepers of said Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog, harbored said dog in

violation of 3 P.S. § 459-502-A, as said dog inflicted severe injury on Plaintiff, A, without

provocation; attacked Plaintiff, A, without provocation; and had either a propensity and/or

history of attacking human beings and/or domestic animals without provocation.

32. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence,

carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, A, was caused to

suffer and sustain the following serious and severe injuries, some or all of which may be

permanent in nature:

a. Left tibial plateau fracture requiring surgical intervention consisting of

open reduction and internal fixation;

b. Permanent surgical scarring and disfigurement of the left lower extremity;

c. Disability of the left lower extremity;

d. Pain of the left lower extremity;

e. Weakness of the left lower extremity;

f. Sprain and strain of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, veins, vessels, skin,

soft tissues, and other structures of the left lower extremity;

g. Other injuries the full nature and extent of which are not currently known.


carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, A, has suffered the

following damages:

#1480567

a. He has been and will be required to expend large sums of money for

surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical

appliances, medications, therapies, and the services of nurses, with his past

medical expenses being in excess of $1,500.00;

b. He has suffered and will continue to suffer great physical and mental pain,

discomfort, distress, inconvenience, embarrassment, mental anguish,

humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures;

c. He has suffered permanent impairment to his left leg;

d. His general health, strength, and vitality have been impaired;

e. He has been and will be deprived of his earnings;

f. His earning power has been reduced and permanently impaired; and,

g. He has been permanently scarred and disfigured.


carelessness, and/or recklessness of all Defendants in this matter, Plaintiff, B, has suffered the

following damages:

a. She has suffered a loss of consortium;

b. She has been deprived of the services, society, and comfort of her

husband, Plaintiff, A; and,

c. She has incurred debt and expenses as a result of the injuries inflicted

upon her husband, Plaintiff, A.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENCE

A and B, husband and wife, Plaintiffs

v.

X and Y, husband and wife, Defendants

35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if the

same were set forth at length herein.

#1480567

36. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by and were the

direct and proximate result of all Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence,

carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendants, X and Y,

husband and wife, specifically, as set forth as follows:

a. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash the aforementioned

Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog;

b. In failing to take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendants’

premises;

c. In failing to take any steps or measures to prevent the escape of said dog

from Defendants’ premises;

d. In failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the actions of said dog in a safe

and proper manner;

e. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendants knew or

should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that said dog had a

history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing humans and/or domestic

animals;

f. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to chase, pursue, and

come into contact with Plaintiff, A, when Defendants knew or should have

known said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing

humans and/or domestic animals;

g. In failing to properly control said dog so it would not leave Defendants’

property to cause harm to another human being;

h. In failing to restrict, restrain, or prohibit said dog from coming into contact

with and causing harm to a human being, including Plaintiff, A;

i. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with

and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A; and,

j. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania as they relate to the confinement of dogs and the possession

of a dangerous dog, specifically 3 P.S. secs. 459-305 and 459-502-A.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, A and B demand judgment in their favor and against

Defendants, X and Y, in an amount in excess of the mandatory Arbitration Limits of Allegheny

#1480567

County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well as any such other relief that the

Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENCE


v.

X, Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS




direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence,

carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendant, X, specifically,

as set forth as follows:

a. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash the aforementioned

Dutch and/or German Shepherd dog;

b. In failing to take any steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendant’s

premises;

c. In failing to enforce proper police procedures or to ensure that proper

police procedures were followed that a K-9 officer who was charged with

possession and control of a police dog kept said dog under control and

restraint at all times;

d. In failing to take any steps or measures to prevent the escape of said dog

from Defendant’s premises;

e. In failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the actions of said dog in a safe

and proper manner;

f. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant knew or



animals;

#1480567

g. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to chase, pursue, and

come into contact with Plaintiff, A, when Defendant knew or should have

known said dog had a history and/or propensity of deliberately pursuing

humans and/or domestic animals;

h. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant had actual

knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits

of human beings;

i. In failing to properly restrain, chain, and/or leash said dog and/or take any

steps or measures to confine said dog to Defendant’s premises when

Defendant had actual knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog

to engage in pursuits of human beings;

j. In failing to restrict, restrain, or prohibit said dog from coming into contact

with and causing harm to a human being, including Plaintiff, A;

k. In failing to effectively command said dog in order to stop the dog from

pursuing Plaintiff;

l. In failing to control said dog;

m. In failing to train and/or reinforce any training such that Defendant was

capable of maintaining control over said dog at all times and in all

situations;

n. In exposing the general public, including Plaintiff, A, to a police dog

trained to engage in the pursuit of human beings when said dog was not

adequately trained and/or reinforced in its training such that said dog

would not constitute a danger to the general public;

o. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with

and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A;

p. In failing to properly train said dog to ensure it would obey all verbal

commands;

q. In failing to ensure that said dog would obey all verbal commands before

Defendant(s) allowed said dog to be placed in the custody and control of

an officer; and,

r. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of



#1480567

39. Defendant, Z, and/or Defendant, Z Police Department, is/are liable for the

negligent acts of its employee, Defendant X, regarding the care, custody, and control of the

police dog in question pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(8).


Defendants, X; Z; and, Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, in an amount in excess of the mandatory

Arbitration Limits of Allegheny County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well

as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.

COUNT III

NEGLIGENCE


v.

Z and Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS




direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ joint, several, and combined negligence,

carelessness, and recklessness, as more fully set forth herein, and of Defendants, Z and Z

POLICE DEPARTMENT, specifically, as set forth as follows:

a. In failing to enforce proper police procedures or to ensure that proper

police procedures were followed that a K-9 officer who was charged with

possession and control of a police dog kept said dog under control and

restraint at all times;

b. In failing to properly train its employees, including Defendant, X,

regarding the care, custody, and control of police dogs;

c. In failing to set, create, enforce, disseminate, and/or publish guidelines,

protocol, and/or procedures regarding the care, custody, and control of off

duty police dogs;

#1480567

d. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant knew or



animals;

e. In failing to protect Plaintiff, A, from said dog when Defendant had actual

knowledge that said dog was trained as a police dog to engage in pursuits

of human beings;

f. In failing to train and/or reinforce any training such that Defendant was

capable of maintaining control over said dog at all times and in all

situations;

g. In exposing the general public, including Plaintiff, A, to a police dog

trained to engage in the pursuit of human beings when said dog was not

adequately trained and/or reinforced in its training such that said dog

would not constitute a danger to the general public;

h. In causing, allowing, and/or permitting said dog to come into contact with

and inflict harm upon a human being, including Plaintiff, A;

i. In failing to properly train said dog to ensure it would obey all verbal

commands;

j. In failing to ensure that said dog would obey all verbal commands before

Defendant(s) allowed said dog to be placed in the custody and control of

an officer; and,

k. In violating the laws and ordinances of the Commonwealth of




Defendants, Z; and, Z POLICE DEPARTMENT, in an amount in excess of the mandatory

Arbitration Limits of Allegheny County, together with all associated interests and costs, as well

as any such other relief that the Court may deem appropriate.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.

#1480496

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

A, parent and natural guardian of B, a minor,

Petitioner.

)

)

)

)

ORPHANS COURT DIVISION

No.

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF

SETTLEMENT OF A MINOR’S CLAIM

AND NOW, comes the Petitioner, A, parent and natural guardian of your minor

Petitioner, B, by and through her attorneys, EDGAR SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and files

the following Petition for Approval of Settlement of a Minor’s Claim, and in support thereof aver

as follows:

1. Petitioner, A, is the parent and natural guardian of minor Petitioner, B. The

minor’s date of birth is November 9, 2005, being 5 years of age at the time of subject accident,

and 7 currently. Petitioners reside together at 123 Street Drive, Any City, Fayette County,

Pennsylvania 12345.

2. On October 30, 2011, the minor Petitioner was bitten by a male yellow Labrador

retriever or mixed breed dog named “Dog,” owned by X while on business property owned by

the X, located at 456 Any Road, Any City, Fayette County, Pennsylvania 12345.

3. The minor Petitioner suffered a dog bite to his face, and was taken by private

vehicle to Uniontown Hospital for evaluation. At Uniontown Hospital, Minor Petitioner

received seven (7) sutures to the laceration on his left cheek. The sutures were removed by

Minor Petitioner’s primary care physician on November 4, 2011. True and correct copies of

selected Uniontown Hospital records and the November 4, 2011 Fayette Medical Associates

office note are attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “A.” Additionally, photographs of Minor

#1480496

Petitioner taken on the date of the incident are attached as Exhibit “B” and photographs of the

Minor Petitioner taken on October 8, 2012 are attached as Exhibit “C”.

4. Petitioner, A, retained the law firm of XYZ, to represent the interests of the minor

Petitioner, B, relative to the accident of October 30, 2011. Petitioner entered into a fee

arrangement in the nature of a contingent fee, plus costs, a true and correct copy of which is

attached as Exhibit “D”.

5. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (hereinafter “Department”) has

paid Minor Petitioner’s incident-related medical bills, and is claiming a lien in the amount of

Three Hundred Nineteen and 71/100 Dollars ($319.71). A true and correct copy of the

Department’s Statement of Claim Summary is attached as Exhibit “E”.

6. The owner of the dog, X, is insured under a policy issued by Travelers Home and

Marine Insurance Company (hereinafter “Travelers”) which provides for liability insurance

coverage.

7. Negotiations were entered into with Travelers, through its adjusters, and after

numerous letters, telephone conversations, and an in-person settlement conference, Travelers

has offered One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00)

to settle Minor Petitioner’s liability claim against X and Travelers. Therefore, settlement was

tentatively, pending this Honorable Court’s approval, negotiated whereby the minor Petitioner,

B, was to receive One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars

($100,320.00) as full and final settlement of his liability claim against X and Travelers relative

to the incident.

#1480496

8. Of the One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars

($100,320.00), Petitioners are requesting that Sixty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($60,000.00)

be used to fund an annuity for the benefit of B. Said annuity shall provide guaranteed “periodic

payments” beginning on the Minor’s eighteenth birthday, as follows:

$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2023;



$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2026; and,

$36,036.56 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2030.

The documentation applicable to the proposed structure/annuity is attached as Exhibit “F”.

9. Following its retention, the law firm of XYZ performed work on the case

including but not limited to the following:

a. Met with your Petitioners on multiple occasions;

b. Conducted necessary investigation of the incident;

c. Photographed Minor Petitioner on multiple occasions;

d. Obtained the medical records of Minor Petitioner’s medical treatment;

e. Retained an expert medical witness to discuss the residual psychological problems

which Minor would be expected to encounter as a result of this incident;

f. Documented Minor Petitioner’s injuries to the Insurers;

g. Contacted the medical providers to ensure that medical bills were billed properly

and paid;

h. Negotiated with Travelers and secured the offer detailed herein;

i. Worked with a structured settlement company to obtain the proposed

annuity/structure;

j. Contacted the medical providers to determine whether there were any outstanding

bills;

#1480496

k. Contacted and coordinated repayment of the Department’s lien; and,

l. Prepared the within Petition for approval of the settlement.

10. The attorneys’ fee charged by XYZ, is 25% of the total settlement of One

Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), which totals

Twenty Five Thousand Eighty and 00/100 Dollars ($25,080.00). Additionally, costs in the case

for investigations, medical records and bills, and other expenses total Four Thousand Seven

Hundred Fifty Nine and 54/100 Dollars ($4,759.54) for which the firm of SYZ respectfully

requests to be reimbursed. A copy of the itemization of costs is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.

11. As stated above, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare made medical

payments totaling Three Hundred Nineteen and 71/100 Dollars ($319.71) on Minor Petitioner’s

behalf, and is seeking subrogation. The Department has agreed to accept Two Hundred Twenty

Four and 81/100 Dollars ($224.81) as payment in full of its lien in this matter. A copy of

correspondence from the Department is attached hereto as Exhibit “H”.

12. Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to approve the settlement of

One Hundred Thousand Three Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00), and order

distribution of the settlement funds as follows:

a. The sum of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,080.00) shall

be paid to XYZ, representing its 25% fee;

b. The sum of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Nine and 54/100 Dollars

($4,759.54) shall be paid to XYZ, representing costs incurred in pursuing

the claim on behalf of the Minor Plaintiff;

c. The sum of Two Hundred Twenty Four and 81/100 Dollars ($224.81)

shall be paid to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare to satisfy

its lien in this matter;

#1480496

d. The sum of Sixty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($60,000.00) of the

overall settlement of this matter shall be used to fund an annuity for the

benefit of B. Said annuity shall provide guaranteed “periodic payments”

beginning on the Minor’s eighteenth birthday, as follows:




$12,500.00 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2026; and,

$36,036.56 guaranteed lump sum, payable on November 9, 2030.

e. The sum of Ten Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Five and 65/100 Dollars

($10,255.65) representing the balance from the settlement monies received

from Travelers, shall be deposited directly by the undersigned counsel into

a federally insured bank of the Petitioners’ choosing and placed in the

minor’s own name with the express restriction that no withdrawals shall

be made until the minor achieves the age of 18, unless this Court orders

otherwise.

13. A Proof of Deposit shall be filed with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court within sixty

(60) days of the date of the Order entered herein.

14. Proof of funding of the annuity shall be filed with the Clerk of Orphans’ Court

within sixty (60) days of the date of the Order entered herein.

15. It is requested that Petitioner, A, be authorized to execute any necessary

documents on behalf of B, a minor, to settle all claims relative to the injuries and damages

arising out of the incident described herein.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner, A, respectfully request this Honorable Court approve total

settlement of the liability claim of B, a minor for the sum of One Hundred Thousand Three

Hundred Twenty and 00/100 Dollars ($100,320.00) and order distribution as set forth above.

#1479358

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

A, individually, and as parent and natural

guardian of B, a minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

X and Y, individually and as husband and

wife; and Z,

Defendants.

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No.

SAMPLE COMPLAINT

Filed on behalf of: Plaintiff, A individually,

and as parent and natural guardian of B, a

minor

SAMPLE COMPLAINT – DOG OWNER & LANDLORD

AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B,

a minor, by and through her attorneys, and sets forth the following Complaint in Civil Action

against Defendants, as follows:

1. Plaintiff, A, is an adult individual and the mother of minor-Plaintiff, B, with a

current residence at 123 Main Street, Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15601.

2. Minor-Plaintiff, B, is a minor individual with a date of birth of December 5, 2006,

who is currently six (6) years old, and who resides with her mother, Plaintiff, A, at 123 Main

Street, Greensburg, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15601.

3. Defendants, X and Y, are adult individuals and residents of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania and the County of Westmoreland with a last known address of 456 Any Street,

Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.

4. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants,

X and Y, were husband and wife and were legally married and resided together at 456 Any

Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.

5. Defendant, Z, is an adult individual and resident of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania and the County of Westmoreland with a last known address of 789 Fake Avenue,

Blairsville, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15717.


owned, controlled, managed, and/or supervised the property and premises located at 456 Any

Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.

7. At all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred that Defendants,

X and Y, leased the property located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County,

Pennsylvania 15627 from Defendant, Z

8. In the alternative, at all times material hereto, it is believed and therefore averred

that Defendant, Z, permitted Defendants, X and Y, to gratuitously reside on the premises located

at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.


was a licensed veterinarian and the father of Defendant, Y.

10. The events hereinafter complained of occurred on or about June 11, 2011, at or on

Defendants’ residence and premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County,

Pennsylvania 15627.

11. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, either individually and/or

jointly as husband and wife, were the owners of an adult male Rottweiler dog known as “Dog,”

within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Dog Laws found at 3 P.S. § 459-101, et seq.


allowed, with his knowledge, consent, and permission, Defendants, X and Y, to keep the

aforementioned male Rottweiler dog on the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry,

Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 15627.

13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, and minor-Plaintiff, B, were social

guests at the residence and premises owned by Defendant, Z, and occupied and/or lease by

Defendants, X and Y, as described herein.

14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, A, was in the kitchen area of the within

described premises and minor-Plaintiff, B, was in the living/family room area of the within

described premises premises, with Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son, who was six (6) years of

age.

15. At all times material hereto, the within described Rottweiler dog, “Dog,” was in

the living/family room area of the within described premises, with minor-Plaintiff, B, and with

Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son.

16. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y’s, minor son was petting said

Rottweiler dog and subsequently instructed minor-Plaintiff, B, that it was her turn to pet said

dog.

17. At all times material hereto, minor-Plaintiff, B, was standing on the floor in front

of said Rottweiler dog and was interacting with said dog by petting and/or hugging said dog.

18. At all times material hereto, as minor-Plaintiff, B, was drawing away from said

dog after having pet and/or hugged said Rottweiler dog, said dog suddenly and without warning

or provocation lunged at minor-Plaintiff’s face, attacking minor-Plaintiff and biting and grasping

her by the face with his teeth/mouth, and shaking minor-Plaintiff by the face, causing minor-

Plaintiff to suffer multiple lacerations and puncture wounds to her face.

19. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X and Y, permitted said Rottweiler dog

to roam free without supervision when minor-Plaintiff, B, was visiting the home.

20. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, had actual knowledge that

said dog had dangerous, hazardous, and vicious propensities to attack and/or bite without

provocation and that said dog constituted a hazard to humans.

21. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, had actual knowledge that

said dog had previously bitten at least two (2) other individuals, including Defendant, X’s,

grandmother, and another adult individual by the name of “Man,” causing serious personal

injuries to both individuals.

22. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Z, permitted and allowed said dog to

remain on or about the premises located at 456 Any Street, Derry, Westmoreland County,

Pennsylvania 15627, while Defendant, Z, had actual knowledge that said dog had previously

viciously and violently attacked and bitten at least two (2) adult individuals.

23. At all times material hereto, Defendants, X, Y, and Z, never advised, warned,

and/or informed minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and vicious propensities of said

dog nor that the dog had the tendency to attack, bite, and/or pose a serious risk of harm to

children and other individuals.

24. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described dog attack, minor-

Plaintiff was caused to suffer and sustain serious, severe, and permanent personal injuries,

hereinafter more fully described.

25. As a direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined negligence,

carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, minor-Plaintiff, B, suffered and

sustained the following serious and severe personal injuries, some or all of which may be

permanent:

a. Multiple lacerations, puncture wounds, and bite injuries to the nose, upper

lip, right cheek, and face;

b. Swelling and redness;

c. Permanent scarring and disfigurement;

d. Permanent discoloration of the skin of her face;

e. Pain of the nose, mouth, and face;

f. Emotional distress;

g. Anxiety; and,

h. Other serious and severe injuries the full nature and extent of which are

currently unknown.

26. As a further direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined

negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, minor-Plaintiff, B, has

been damaged as follows:

a. She has suffered and will continue to suffer from great physical and

mental pain, discomfort, distress, mental anguish, anxiety, inconvenience,

and loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures;

b. She has been embarrassed and humiliated;

c. She has been permanently scarred and disfigured;

d. Her general health, strength, and vitality have been impaired;

e. Her earning power and capacity have been diminished and/or reduced;

and,

f. She will be required in the future, after achieving the age of majority, to

expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention,

hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines, and

services of doctors and nurses.

27. As a further direct and proximate result of the joint, several, combined

negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendants, X, Y, and Z, Plaintiff, A, has been

damaged as follows:

a. She has been and will be required in the future, until minor-Plaintiff

achieves the age of majority, to expend large sums of money for surgical

and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical

appliances, medicines, and services of doctors and nurses.

COUNT I

A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor v. X and Y, individually

and as husband and wife

28. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 27, inclusive, of

this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.

29. The injuries and damages set forth herein were caused by and were a direct and

proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness

of Defendants, X and Y, generally as described herein, and specifically as set forth as follows:

a. In failing to properly restrain, house, cage, fence or leash said dog;

b. In failing to warn minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and

hazardous propensities of said dog and its vicious tendencies;

c. In failing to be diligent and vigilant in the supervising of the actions of

said dog in a constant and/or safe and proper manner;

d. In failing to protect the public in general and minor-Plaintiff in particular

from the vicious and dangerous propensities of said dog by allowing the

dog to roam free when Defendants knew or should have known of its

dangerous propensities;

e. In allowing and permitting said dog to be placed in, around, and/or near

minor-Plaintiff when they had actual or constructive notice of the fact that

the dog had dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities and would act

in an erratic behavior, especially around children;

f. In allowing and permitting said dog to be placed in, around, and/or near

minor-Plaintiff when Defendants had actual knowledge that the dog had

previously bitten two other individuals;

g. In allowing or permitting said dog to roam free without informing minor-

Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the potential harms and hazards that could

come from the dog in question;

h. In permitting an attractive nuisance to exist such that the dog was not

placed in a properly secured area, but instead was placed in close

proximity to minor-Plaintiff when Defendants knew or should have known

that minor-Plaintiff would be attracted to said dog and was, in fact,

encouraged to interact with said dog by Defendants’ minor son;

i. In allowing said dog to be in contact with minor-Plaintiff despite the

knowledge of the propensities of the dog to be dangerous and vicious and

to take any and all steps necessary to eliminate the dog’s presence from

the minor children;

j. In violating the local and state ordinances regarding restraint of animals

and/or licensing procedures pursuant thereto;

k. In violating the Pennsylvania dog laws, including, but not limited to, §§

459-502-A, 459-503-A, 459-504-A, 459-505-A, of Title 3 of the

Pennsylvania Statutes;

l. In causing, allowing or permitting the dog to come into contact with

minor-Plaintiff while said dog was not being supervised;

m. In failing to muzzle said dog at all times;

n. In knowingly harboring a dangerous dog

o. In failing to keep said dog isolated and/or away from minor-Plaintiff

despite the knowledge that the dog had vicious propensities and was

known to attack humans without warning and/or provocation; and,

p. In failing to take any steps or any actions to prevent said dog from coming

into contact with minor-Plaintiff at the time of the incident.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, A, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B, a

minor, demand that Judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants, in excess of the

mandatory Arbitration Limits of Westmoreland County, together with costs and interest.

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED.

COUNT II

A, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of B, a minor v. Z

30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of

this Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.

31. The injuries and damages set forth herein were caused by and were a direct and

proximate result of the joint, several, and combined negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness

of Defendant, Z, generally as described herein, and specifically as set forth as follows:

a. in permitting and/or allowing tenants, lessees, and/or occupants to house

and/or harbor dangerous dog, that being a Rottweiler in and on the

premises in question when he had knowledge, actual or constructive, that

said dog had dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities;

b. in failing to have the Rottweiler removed from the premises when he knew

or should have known of the vicious, hazardous and dangerous

propensities of the aforementioned Rottweiler;

c. in renting, leasing, and/or gratuitously lending a residential premises to

tenants when Defendant knew or should have known that said tenants

would house upon the premises a Rottweiler dog known to Defendant to

have dangerous and vicious propensities;

d. in failing to be vigilant and/or to supervise the tenants to ensure that they

did not own pets with dangerous, hazardous and vicious propensities; and,

e. In failing to warn minor-Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff of the dangerous and

hazardous propensities of said dog and its vicious tendencies.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, A, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B, a

minor, demand that Judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants, in excess of the

mandatory Arbitration Limits of Westmoreland County, together with costs and interest.

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED.

1377041 #1414148

STATE DOG BITE/DOG LEASH LAWS

Alabama

Liability:

Liability of owner of dog for injuries to person bitten or injured while

upon property owned or controlled by owner, etc.

If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person

who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be,

the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so

bitten or injured, but such liability shall arise only when the person

so bitten or injured is upon property owned or controlled by the

owner of such dog at the time such bite or injury occurs or when

such person has been immediately prior to such time on such

property and has been pursued therefrom by such dog

When person deemed lawfully on property of owner of dog

For the purpose of this chapter a person shall be considered to be

lawfully upon the private property of the owner of such dog when

he is on such property in the performance of any duty imposed

upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws of the United

States or the postal laws and regulations of the United States, when

reading meters, when delivering milk, when making repairs to any

public utility or service upon said premises or when on such

property upon the invitation, either expressed or implied, of the

owner or lessee of such property.

Mitigation of damages

The owner of such dog shall, however, be entitled to plead and

prove in mitigation of damages that he had no knowledge of any

circumstances indicating such dog to be or to have been vicious or

dangerous or mischievous, and, if he does so, he shall be liable

only to the extent of the actual expenses incurred by the person so

bitten or injured as a result of the bite or injury.

Source: Ala. Code § 3-6-1 (West)

Vicious and Dangerous Dogs:

§ 3-1-3. Liability of owner, etc., permitting vicious or dangerous

animal to be at liberty, etc., for injuries caused by same.

When any person owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of

any kind and, as a result of his careless management of the same or

his allowing the same to go at liberty, and another person, without

fault on his part, is injured thereby, such owner or keeper shall be

liable in damages for such injury.

1377041 #1414148

Rabid Dogs:

§ 3-1-2. Liability of owner, etc., for injuries caused by rabid dog.

The owner or person in charge of any dog, who knows that such

dog has been bitten by a rabid dog or has knowledge of such

facts that if followed up would disclose the facts that such dog

has been bitten by or exposed to a rabid dog, if such dog

becomes a rabid dog and bites any person, stock, hogs or cattle

shall be liable to twice the damages sustained by the person

injured, including appropriate medical treatment, such damages

to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.

No updates to Bite Law

No dog shall be permitted except on leash within any wildlife

management area except per state rule; the owner of any dog at large

within any wildlife management area shall be guilty of a misdemeanor

Source: Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-305

No Updates to Leash Law

Alaska Update: add under Liability Statute

Dogs deemed vicious

Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a

human being is considered vicious. Any person may lawfully kill

any vicious or mad dog running at large.

Source: Alaska Stat. Ann. § 03.55.020 (West)

No Updates to Leash Law (no statewide statute)

Arizona Liability for dog bites

A. The owner of a dog which bites a person when the person is in

or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including

the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered

by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the

dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness.

B. Nothing in this section or in § 11-1020 shall permit the

bringing of an action for damages against any governmental

agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred

while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking

act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:

o (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the

employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's

1377041 #1414148

involvement in criminal activity.

o (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.

o (3) In the execution of a warrant.

o (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.

C. Subsection B of this section shall not apply in any case where

the victim of the bite was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor

suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act that prompted

the use of the dog in the military or police work.

D. Subsection B of this section shall apply only where a

governmental agency using a dog in military or police work has

adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a

dog for the police or military work enumerated in subsection B of

this section.

No Updates to Bite Law

Source: Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11-1025 (West)

Arizona Leash Law:

No person in charge of any dog shall permit such dog in a public park or

upon any public school property unless the dog is physically restrained by

a leash, enclosed in a car, cage or similar enclosure or being exhibited or

trained at a recognized kennel club event, public school or park sponsored

event.

Source: A.R.S. § 11-1012

No updates to Leash Law

Arkansas Unlawful activities regarding animal bites

(a) It is unlawful for any person bitten, the family, treating

physician, or veterinarian that has knowledge of a person bitten by

a dog or cat or other animal to refuse to notify the health

authorities promptly.

(b) It is unlawful for the owner of the dog or cat or other animal to

sell, give away, transfer, transport to another area, or otherwise

dispose of the dog or cat or other animal that is known to have

bitten a person until it is released by the health authorities.

(c)(1) It is unlawful for the owner of the dog or cat or other animal

to refuse or fail to comply with the written or printed instructions

of the health authorities in any particular case.

o (2)(A) The written instructions shall be delivered in person

1377041 #1414148

by health authorities or their authorized agent.

(B) If instructions cannot be delivered in person,

they shall be mailed by regular mail, postage

prepaid, and addressed to the owner of the dog or

cat or other animal.

(C) The affidavit or testimony of the health

authorities or their authorized agent, who delivered

or mailed such instructions, shall be prima facie

evidence of the receipt of the instructions by the

owner of the dog or cat or other animal.

Source: Ark. Code Ann. § 20-19-306 (West)

Updates to Law:

Based on the statute above, I would update our website under “Dangerous

Dog Statute” to say: Although Arkansas does not have a dangerous dog

statute, a dog owner whose dog bites another person must notify health

authorities promptly.


California Dog bites; liability of owner; military or police work excluded;

limitations

(a) The owner of any dog is liable for the damages suffered by any

person who is bitten by the dog while in a public place or lawfully

in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog,

regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's

knowledge of such viciousness. A person is lawfully upon the

private property of such owner within the meaning of this section

when he is on such property in the performance of any duty

imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal

regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property

upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner.

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action

pursuant to subdivision (a) against any governmental agency using

a dog in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while

the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or

provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the

following:

o (1) In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the


involvement in criminal activity.

1377041 #1414148

o (2) In the investigation of a crime or possible crime.

o (3) In the execution of a warrant.

o (4) In the defense of a peace officer or another person.

(c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply in any case where the victim of

the bite or bites was not a party to, nor a participant in, nor

suspected to be a party to or a participant in, the act or acts that

prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work.

(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply only where a governmental agency

using a dog in military or police work has adopted a written policy

on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for the police or

military work enumerated in subdivision (b).

Source: Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 3342 (West)



Colorado

Civil actions against dog owners

(2) A person or a personal representative of a person who suffers

serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while

lawfully on public or private property shall be entitled to bring a

civil action to recover economic damages against the dog owner

regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog

or the dog owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog's

viciousness or dangerous propensities.

(3) In any case described in subsection (2) of this section in which

it is alleged and proved that the dog owner had knowledge or

notice of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities, the

court, upon a motion made by the victim or the personal

representative of the victim, may enter an order that the dog be

euthanized by a licensed veterinarian or licensed shelter at the

expense of the dog owner.

(4) For purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be

lawfully on public or private property if he or she is in the

performance of a duty imposed upon him or her by local, state, or

federal laws or regulations or if he or she is on property upon

express or implied invitation of the owner of the property or is on

his or her own property.

(5) A dog owner shall not be liable to a person who suffers bodily

injury, serious bodily injury, or death from being bitten by the dog:

o (a) While the person is unlawfully on public or private

1377041 #1414148

property;

o (b) While the person is on property of the dog owner and

the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one

or more posted signs stating “no trespassing” or “beware of

dog”;

o (c) While the dog is being used by a peace officer or

military personnel in the performance of peace officer or

military personnel duties;

o (d) As a result of the person knowingly provoking the dog;

o (e) If the person is a veterinary health care worker, dog

groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog

handler, trainer, or dog show judge acting in the

performance of his or her respective duties; or

o (f) While the dog is working as a hunting dog, herding dog,

farm or ranch dog, or predator control dog on the property

of or under the control of the dog's owner.

No Updates to Bite/Dangerous Dog Laws

Source: Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-124 (West)

Colorado Leash Law:

It is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other

mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the

county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow

it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and

impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal found

running at large and dispose of such animal in accordance with local

program policy.

Source: C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610

No updates to Leash Laws

Connecticut

Damage to person or property

If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any

person, the owner or keeper, or, if the owner or keeper is a minor,

the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for such

damage, except when such damage has been occasioned to the

body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was

sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing,

tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an

action under this section is brought, was under seven years of age

1377041 #1414148

at the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such

minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing,

tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof

shall be upon the defendant in such action.

Source: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 22-357 (West)

No updates to Bite Law

It is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other

mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the

county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow

it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and

impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal found

running at large and dispose of such animal in accordance with local

program policy.

Source: C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610


Delaware

Liability of dog owner for damages

The owner of a dog is liable in damages for any injury, death or

loss to person or property that is caused by such dog, unless the

injury, death or loss was caused to the body or property of a person

who, at the time, was committing or attempting to commit a

trespass or other criminal offense on the property of the owner, or

was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense against

any person, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog.


Dogs running at large

No dog shall be permitted to run at large at any time, unless the

dog is accompanied by the owner or custodian and under the

owner's or custodian's reasonable control and is licensed in

accordance with county ordinances, except that a person who is an

occupant of a farm or property containing 20 acres or more on

which there are no more than 3 resident dwelling units may permit

a dog to run at large between October 1 and the last day of

February, next following. Any owner or custodian who violates

this subsection shall be fined not less than $25 or more than $50.

For each subsequent offense occurring within 12 months of a prior

1377041 #1414148

offense, the person shall be fined not less than $50 or more than

$100. The minimum fine for a subsequent offense shall not be

subject to suspension. For the purposes of this section, the term

“dog” shall mean any dog or dog hybrid. Allowing a dog to run at

large is a violation.

(b) The owner or custodian of every dog shall, at all times between

the hours of sunset and sunrise of each day, keep such dog either:

o (1) Confined within an enclosure from which it cannot

escape; or

o (2) Firmly secured by means of a collar or chain or other

device so that it cannot stray from the premises on which it

is secured; or

o (3) Under the reasonable control of some person or when

engaged in lawful hunting accompanied by the owner or

custodian.

(c) Whoever, being the owner, custodian, possessor or harborer of

any female dog, allows such dog to run or remain at large in this

State while in heat shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than

$100. For each subsequent offense occurring within 12 months of

a prior offense, the person shall be fined not less than $100 or

more than $200. The minimum fine for a subsequent offense shall

not be subject to suspension. Allowing a female dog to run at large

while in heat is a violation.

(d) Whoever, being the owner, custodian, possessor or harborer of

any dog that while running at large and without provocation, bites

a person, shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500. For

each subsequent offense involving the same dog, such owner,

custodian, possessor or harborer shall be fined not less than $750

or more than $1,500. The minimum fines provided for in this

subsection, $100 for the first offense and $750 for each subsequent

offense, shall not be subject to suspension.

(e) Upon conviction in any court of an offense under subsection

(d) of this section, the court shall cause a report to be forwarded to

the county in which the offense occurred or to the dog control

authority in each county as designated by the county. Said report

shall contain the name of the defendant, the name of the dog, the

license number of the dog, the date of the offense and the date of

conviction. The county shall maintain these reports for a period of

3 years.

No updates to Leash Law

1377041 #1414148

Source: Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, § 908 (West), Del. Code Ann. tit. 9, § 913

(West)

District Of

Columbia

Dangerous dog and potentially dangerous dog owner responsibilities

It shall be unlawful to:

Keep a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog without a valid

certificate of registration issued under § 8-1904;

(2) Permit a potentially dangerous dog to be outside a proper

enclosure unless the potentially dangerous dog is under the control

of a responsible person and restrained by a chain or leash, not

exceeding 4 feet in length;

(3) Fail to maintain a dangerous dog exclusively on the owner's

property except for medical treatment or examination. When

removed from the owner's property for medical treatment or

examination, the dangerous dog shall be caged or under the control

of a responsible person and muzzled and restrained with a chain or

leash, not exceeding 4 feet in length. The muzzle shall be made in

a manner that will not cause injury to the dangerous dog or

interfere with its vision or respiration, but shall prevent it from

biting any human being or animal;

(4) Fail to notify the Mayor within 24 hours if a potentially

dangerous or dangerous dog is on the loose, is unconfined, has

attacked another domestic animal, has attacked a human being, has

died, has been sold, or has been given away. If the potentially

dangerous or dangerous dog has been sold or given away, the

owner shall also provide the Mayor with the name, address, and

telephone number of the new owner of the potentially dangerous

or dangerous dog;

(5) Fail to surrender a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog to

the Mayor for safe confinement pending disposition of the case

when there is a reason to believe that the potentially dangerous or

dangerous dog poses a threat to public safety;

(6) Fail to comply with any special security or care requirements

for a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog the Mayor may

establish pursuant to § 8-1903; or

(7) Remove a dangerous dog from the District without written

permission from the Mayor

Source: D.C. Code § 8-1905 (West)


1377041 #1414148

§ 8-1808. Prohibited conduct.

(e) No dog shall be permitted on any school ground when school is in

session or on any public recreation area, other than a dog park, unless the

dog is leashed.


Florida

Dog owner’s liability for damages to persons bitten

The owner of any dog that bites any person while such person is

on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place,

including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for

damages suffered by persons bitten, regardless of the former

viciousness of the dog or the owners' knowledge of such

viciousness. However, any negligence on the part of the person

bitten that is a proximate cause of the biting incident reduces the

liability of the owner of the dog by the percentage that the bitten

person's negligence contributed to the biting incident. A person is

lawfully upon private property of such owner within the meaning

of this act when the person is on such property in the performance

of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by

the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when the

person is on such property upon invitation, expressed or implied,

of the owner. However, the owner is not liable, except as to a

person under the age of 6, or unless the damages are proximately

caused by a negligent act or omission of the owner, if at the time

of any such injury the owner had displayed in a prominent place

on his or her premises a sign easily readable including the words

“Bad Dog.” The remedy provided by this section is in addition to

and cumulative with any other remedy provided by statute or

common law.


Source: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 767.04 (West)

No Updates to Leash Law (still no state-wide statute)

Georgia

Vicious animals, liability for injuries caused by

A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any

kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal

1377041 #1414148

to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not

provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the

person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be

sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a

leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated

government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence

not at heel or on a leash. The foregoing sentence shall not apply to

domesticated fowl including roosters with spurs. The foregoing

sentence shall not apply to domesticated livestock.

No Updates

Source: Ga. Code Ann. § 51-2-7 (West)


Hawaii

Human bitten by dog; duty of dog owners; action against owner

(a) The owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have

the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent

the recurrence of such incident.

(b) Whenever a dog has bitten a human being on at least two

separate occasions for which none of the exceptions specified in

section 663-9.1 apply, any person may bring an action against the

owner of the dog in the district court of the judicial circuit in

which the owner resides, to determine whether conditions of the

treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances

existing at the time of the bites have been changed so as to remove

the danger to other persons presented by such animal. The court,

after hearing, may make any order it deems appropriate to prevent

the recurrence of such an incident, including but not limited to the

removal of the animal from the area or its destruction by its owner.

In making its decision, the court may consider:

o (1) The vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal;

o (2) The ability of the owner to adequately confine or

remove the animal; and

o (3) The necessity of any destruction of an animal in light of

the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

This section shall not preclude any existing common law

remedies.

(c) Each county may enact and enforce ordinances regulating

persons who own, harbor, or keep any dog that has bitten,

1377041 #1414148

injured, or maimed a person. No ordinance enacted under this

subsection shall be held invalid on the ground that it covers

any subject or matter embraced within any statute or rule of the

State; provided that the ordinance shall not affect the civil

liability of a person owning, harboring, or keeping the dog.

Upon enactment of an ordinance, whether enacted on, before,

or after June 30, 2001, the ordinance shall have full force and

effect; provided that the ordinance is consistent with this

section.

Liability of animal owners

The owner or harborer of an animal, if the animal proximately

causes either personal or property damage to any person, shall

be liable in damages to the person injured regardless of the

animal owner's or harborer's lack of scienter of the vicious or

dangerous propensities of the animal.

(b) The owner or harborer of an animal which is known by its

species or nature to be dangerous, wild, or vicious, if the

animal proximately causes either personal or property damage

to any person, shall be absolutely liable for such damage.

Source: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 142-75 (Lexis), Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 (Lexis)


No Updates Leash Law (no state-wide statute)

Idaho

Dogs running at large—Vicious dogs—Penalty

(1) Any person, who, after complaint has been made by any person

to the sheriff, who shall serve a copy of said notice upon such

person complained of, willfully or negligently permits any dog

owned or possessed or harbored by him to be, or run, at large

without a competent and responsible attendant or master, within

the limits of any city, town, or village or in the vicinity of any

farm, pasture, ranch, dwelling house, or cultivated lands of

another, or who willfully or negligently fails, neglects or refuses to

keep any such dog securely confined within the limits of his own

premises when not under the immediate care and control of a

competent and responsible attendant or master, shall be guilty of

an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho

Code.

(2) Any dog which, when not physically provoked, physically

1377041 #1414148

attacks, wounds, bites or otherwise injures any person who is not

trespassing, is vicious. It shall be unlawful for the owner or for the

owner of premises on which a vicious dog is present to harbor a

vicious dog outside a secure enclosure. A secure enclosure is one

from which the animal cannot escape and for which exit and entry

is controlled by the owner of the premises or owner of the animal.

Any vicious dog removed from the secure enclosure must be

restrained by a chain sufficient to control the vicious dog. Persons

guilty of a violation of this subsection, and in addition to any

liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code, shall be

guilty of a misdemeanor. For a second or subsequent violation of

this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety,

order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct

the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog.

Source: Idaho Code Ann. § 25-2805 (West)

No Updates


Illinois

5/16. Animal attacks or injuries

§ 16. Animal attacks or injuries. If a dog or other animal, without

provocation, attacks, attempts to attack, or injures any person who

is peaceably conducting himself or herself in any place where he

or she may lawfully be, the owner of such dog or other animal is

liable in civil damages to such person for the full amount of the

injury proximately caused thereby.


Source: IL ST CH 510 § 5/16

5/15.2. Dangerous dogs; leash

§ 15.2. Dangerous dogs; leash. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly

or recklessly permit any dangerous dog to leave the premises of its owner

when not under control by leash or other recognized control methods.

No Update to Leash Law

Indiana

Liability of owner for unprovoked dog bites

Sec. 3. (a) If a dog, without provocation, bites a person:

1377041 #1414148

(1) who is acting peaceably; and

(2) who is in a location where the person may be required to be in

order to discharge a duty imposed upon the person by:

o (A) the laws of Indiana;

o (B) the laws of the United States; or

o (C) the postal regulations of the United States;

the owner of the dog is liable for all damages suffered by the person

bitten.

(b) The owner of a dog described in subsection (a) is liable for

damages even if:

o (1) the dog has not previously behaved in a vicious

manner; or

o (2) the owner has no knowledge of prior vicious behavior

by the dog.

Source: Ind. Code Ann. § 15-20-1-3 (West)


No updates to Leash Law (no state-wide statute)

Iowa

Liability for damages

The owner of a dog shall be liable to an injured party for all

damages done by the dog, when the dog is caught in the action of

worrying, maiming, or killing a domestic animal, or the dog is

attacking or attempting to bite a person, except when the party

damaged is doing an unlawful act, directly contributing to the

injury. This section does not apply to damage done by a dog

affected with hydrophobia unless the owner of the dog had

reasonable grounds to know that the dog was afflicted with

hydrophobia and by reasonable effort might have prevented the

injury.


Source: Iowa Code Ann. § 351.28 (West)

A dog shall be apprehended and impounded by a local board of health or

law enforcement official if the dog is running at large and the dog is not

wearing a valid rabies vaccination tag or a rabies vaccination certificate is

not presented to the local board of health or law enforcement official

Source: I. C. A. § 351.37

1377041 #1414148


Kansas

No Updates to Bite Law (no statewide statute)


Kentucky

Authority to kill or seize dog; return by court to owner of vicious dog;

liability for damage; proceeding by person attacked by dog;

disposition of dog after seizure; powers of animal control officer;

vicious dog not to run at large

(1)Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is

observed attacking any person.

(2) Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill

any dog trespassing on that owner's property and observed in the

act of pursuing or wounding his livestock.

(3) Any dog determined to be vicious by a court and allowed to be

returned to an owner shall be confined in a locked enclosure at

least seven (7) feet high or a locked kennel run with a secured top.

The dog may leave the enclosure only to visit the veterinarian or to

be turned in to an animal shelter. The dog shall be muzzled if

leaving the enclosure for either of these purposes.

(4) Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a

person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that

damage.

(5) (a) Any person who has been attacked by a dog, or anyone

acting on behalf of that person, may make a complaint before the

district court, charging the owner or keeper of the dog with

harboring a vicious dog. A copy of the complaint shall be served

upon the person so charged in the same manner and subject to the

laws regulating the service of summons in civil actions directing

him to appear for a hearing of the complaint at a time fixed in the

complaint. If the person fails to appear at the time fixed, or if upon

a hearing of the parties and their witnesses, the court finds the

person so charged is the owner or keeper of the dog in question,

and that the dog has viciously and without cause, attacked a human

being when off the premises of the owner or keeper, the person

shall be subject to the penalties set forth in KRS 258.990(3)(b),

and the court shall further order the owner or keeper to keep the

dog securely confined as provided by subsection (3) of this

1377041 #1414148

section, or the court may order the dog to be destroyed.

o (b) The animal control officer shall act as an officer of the

court for the enforcement of any orders of the court in his

jurisdiction pertaining to this subsection.

(6) For his services in the proceedings, a peace officer shall be

entitled to the same fees to which he is entitled for performing

similar services in civil cases. In all proceedings under this section,

the court shall place the costs upon either party as it may

determine.

(7) It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any vicious dog,

after receiving an order under subsection (5) of this section, to

permit the dog to run at large, or to appear in public except as

provided in subsection (3) of this section. Any vicious dog found

running at large may be killed by any animal control officer or

peace officer without liability for damages for the killing.


Source: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 258.235 (West)

Any peace officer or animal control officer may seize or destroy any dog

found running at large between the hours of sunset and sunrise and

unaccompanied and not under the control of its owner or handler

KRS § 258.265


Louisiana

Art. 2321. Damage caused by animals

The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by

the animal. However, he is answerable for the damage only upon a

showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should

have known that his animal's behavior would cause damage, that

the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of

reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable

care. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages

for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the

owner could have prevented and which did not result from the

injured person's provocation of the dog. Nothing in this Article

shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res

ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.

1377041 #1414148


Source: La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2321, La. Stat. Ann. § 3:2771

§ 2771. Dogs not to run at large

No person shall suffer or permit any dog in his possession, or kept by him

about his premises, to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass

upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another.


Maine

§ 3961. Reimbursement for damage done by animals

Injuries and damages by animal. When an animal damages a

person or that person's property due to negligence of the animal's

owner or keeper, the owner or keeper of that animal is liable in a

civil action to the person injured for the amount of damage done if

the damage was not occasioned through the fault of the person

injured.

2. Injuries by dog. Notwithstanding subsection 1, when a dog

injures a person who is not on the owner's or keeper's premises at

the time of the injury, the owner or keeper of the dog is liable in a

civil action to the person injured for the amount of the damages.

Any fault on the part of the person injured may not reduce the

damages recovered for physical injury to that person unless the

court determines that the fault of the person injured exceeded the

fault of the dog's keeper or owner.


Source: 7 Me. Rev. Stat. § 3961

It is unlawful for any dog, licensed or unlicensed, to be at large, except

when used for hunting. The owner or keeper of any dog found at large is

subject to the penalties provided in this chapter

7 M.R.S.A. §3901


Maryland

Determination of potentially dangerous dog

(c) An appropriate unit of a county or municipal corporation may

determine that a dog is potentially dangerous if the unit:

1377041 #1414148

o (1) finds that the dog:

(i) has inflicted a bite on a person while on public

or private real property;

(ii) when not on its owner's real property, has killed

or inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal; or

(iii) has attacked without provocation; and

o (2) notifies the dog owner in writing of the reasons for this

determination.

Prohibited

(d) A dog owner may not:

o (1) leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's real

property unless the dog is:

(i) confined indoors;

(ii) in a securely enclosed and locked pen; or

(iii) in another structure designed to restrain the

dog; or

o (2) allow a dangerous dog to leave the owner's real

property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled, or is

otherwise securely restrained and muzzled


Source: Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. § 10-619


Massachusetts

§ 155. Liability for damage caused by dog; minors; presumption and

burden of proof

If any dog shall do any damage to either the body or property of

any person, the owner or keeper, or if the owner or keeper be a

minor, the parent or guardian of such minor, shall be liable for

such damage, unless such damage shall have been occasioned to

the body or property of a person who, at the time such damage was

sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing,

tormenting or abusing such dog. If a minor, on whose behalf an

action under this section is brought, is under seven years of age at

the time the damage was done, it shall be presumed that such

minor was not committing a trespass or other tort, or teasing,

tormenting or abusing such dog, and the burden of proof thereof

shall be upon the defendant in such action.


1377041 #1414148

Source: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140, § 155 (West)

A person owning, keeping or possessing a dog shall not allow, permit or

consent to such dog chasing, hunting, molesting, attacking or killing a

deer. The director is hereby authorized to issue an order to restrain all

dogs from running at large in any city or town where, in his opinion, such

a restraining order is necessary to prevent dogs from chasing, hunting,

molesting, attacking or killing deer

M.G.L.A. 131 § 82

Whoever is the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain said dog by a chain

or leash when in an officially designated public highway rest area.

Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine

of not more than fifty dollars

M.G.L.A. 140 § 174B


Michigan

287.351. Injuries by dogs; liability of owners

Sec. 1. (1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the

person is on public property, or lawfully on private property,

including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the

dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten,

regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's

knowledge of such viciousness.

(2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the

dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner's

property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her

by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the

United States, or if the person is on the owner's property as an

invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the

property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the

premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.


Source: Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 287.351 (West)

It shall be unlawful for any owner to allow any dog, except working dogs

such as leader dogs, guard dogs, farm dogs, hunting dogs, and other such

dogs, when accompanied by their owner or his authorized agent, while

1377041 #1414148

actively engaged in activities for which such dogs are trained, to stray

unless held properly in leash

M. C. L. A. 287.262

It shall be unlawful for any person to own any dog 6 months old or over

for any owner of any female dog to permit the female dog to go beyond

the premises of such owner when she is in heat unless the female dog is

held properly in leash.

M. C. L. A. 287.262

No Updates to Leash Law, but there is a typo on the page. Changes

“does” to “dogs.”

Minnesota

347.22. Damages, owner liable

If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is

acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be,

the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked

or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term

“owner” includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the

owner shall be primarily liable. The term “dog” includes both male

and female of the canine species.

Source: Minn. Stat. Ann. § 347.22 (West)


Any person may seize, impound, or restrain any unlicensed dog which the

person may find running at large. The fact that a dog is without a license

attached to a collar shall be presumptive evidence that the dog is

unlicensed. The sheriff and sheriff's deputies or other police officer shall

seize, impound or restrain any dog for which no license has been issued

and for which one is required.

M. S. A. § 347.14


Mississippi

No Updates to Bite Law (still no statewide bite statute)

Source:

The governing authorities of municipalities shall have the power to

prevent or regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds, and to

1377041 #1414148

cause such as may be running at large to be impounded and sold to

discharge the costs and penalties provided for the violation of such

regulations and the expense of impounding and keeping and selling the

same

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-19-9


Missouri

273.036. Dog bite without provocation--owner liable for damages

The owner or possessor of any dog that bites, without provocation,

any person while such person is on public property, or lawfully on

private property, including the property of the owner or possessor

of the dog, is strictly liable for damages suffered by persons bitten,

regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's or

possessor's knowledge of such viciousness. Owners and possessors

of dogs shall also be strictly liable for any damage to property or

livestock proximately caused by their dogs. If it is determined that

the damaged party had fault in the incident, any damages owed by

the owner or possessor of the biting dog shall be reduced by the

same percentage that the damaged party's fault contributed to the

incident. The provisions of this section shall not apply to dogs

killing or maiming sheep or other domestic animals under section

273.020.

2. Any person who is held liable under the provisions of

subsection 1 of this section shall pay a fine not exceeding one

thousand dollars. The remedies provided by this section are in

addition to and cumulative with any other remedy provided by

statute or common law.


Source: Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 273.036 (West)


Montana

27-1-715. Liability of owner of vicious dog

The owner of a dog that without provocation bites a person while

the person is on or in a public place or lawfully on or in a private

place, including the property of the owner of the dog, located

within an incorporated city or town is liable for damages that may

1377041 #1414148

be suffered by the person bitten regardless of the former

viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of the

viciousness.

(2) A person is lawfully upon the private property of the owner

within the meaning of this section when the person is on the

property in the performance of any duty imposed upon the person

by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the

United States of America or when the person is on the property as

an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the

property.


Source: Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-715

A dog found running at large without a valid current dog license tag

issued by the authority of a county or municipal corporation may be

seized and impounded by any sheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, game

warden, county poundmaster, or other law enforcement officer

MCA 7-23-102


Nebraska

54-601. Dogs; personal property; owner liable for damages;

exceptions

(1) Dogs are hereby declared to be personal property for all intents

and purposes, and, except as provided in subsection (2) of this

section, the owner or owners of any dog or dogs shall be liable for

any and all damages that may accrue (a) to any person, other than

a trespasser, by reason of having been bitten by any such dog or

dogs and (b) to any person, firm, or corporation by reason of such

dog or dogs killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing any

person or persons or any sheep or other domestic animals

belonging to such person, firm, or corporation. Such damage may

be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of the amount

claimed.

(2)(a) A governmental agency or its employees using a dog in

military or police work shall not be liable under subsection (1) of

this section to a party to, participant in, or person reasonably

suspected to be a party to or participant in the act that prompted

1377041 #1414148

the use of the dog in the military or police work if the officers of

the governmental agency were complying with a written policy on

the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for military or police

work adopted by the governmental agency and if the damage

occurred while the dog was responding to a harassing or provoking

act or the damage was the result of a reasonable use of force while

the dog or dogs were assisting an employee of the agency in any of

the following:

o (i) The apprehension or holding of a suspect if the


involvement in criminal activity;

o (ii) The investigation of a crime or possible crime;

o (iii) The execution of a warrant; or

o (iv) The defense of a peace officer or another person other

than the suspect.

(b) For purposes of this subsection, harassing or provoking act

means knowingly and intentionally attempting to interfere with,

interfering with, teasing or harassing such dog in order to distract,

or agitating or harming such dog.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601


Leash Law Update:

The owner of any dog running at large for ten days without a collar as

required shall be fined an amount not to exceed $25.

Neb. Rev. St. § 54-607

Nevada

202.500. Dangerous or vicious dogs: Unlawful acts; penalties

1. As used in this section, a dog is:

o (a) “Dangerous” if:

(1) It is so declared pursuant to subsection 2; or

(2) Without provocation, on two separate occasions

within 18 months, it behaves menacingly, to a

degree that would lead a reasonable person to

defend himself or herself against substantial bodily

harm, when the dog is:

(I) Off the premises of its owner or keeper;

1377041 #1414148

or

(II) Not confined in a cage, pen or vehicle.

o (b) “Provoked” when it is tormented or subjected to pain.

o (c) “Vicious” if:

(1) Without being provoked, it kills or inflicts

substantial bodily harm upon a human being; or

(2) After its owner or keeper has been notified by a

law enforcement agency that it is dangerous, it

continues the behavior described in paragraph (a).

2. A dog may be declared dangerous by a law enforcement agency

if it is used in the commission of a crime by its owner or keeper.

3. A dog may not be found dangerous or vicious because of a

defensive act against a person who was committing or attempting

to commit a crime or who provoked the dog.

4. A person who knowingly:

o (a) Owns or keeps a vicious dog, for more than 7 days after

the person has actual notice that the dog is vicious; or

o (b) Transfers ownership of a vicious dog after the person

has actual notice that the dog is vicious,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

5. If substantial bodily harm results from an attack by a dog known

to be vicious, its owner or keeper is guilty of a category D felony

and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In lieu of, or in

addition to, a penalty provided in this subsection, the judge may

order the vicious dog to be humanely destroyed.

6. This section does not apply to a dog used by a law enforcement

officer in the performance of his or her duty.


Source: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 202.500 (West)


New Hampshire

466:31 Dogs a Menace, a Nuisance or Vicious.

I. [Repealed.]

II. Under this section, a dog is considered to be a nuisance, a menace, or

vicious to persons or to property under any or all but not limited to the

following conditions:

(a) If a dog is “at large,” which means it is off the premises of the owner

or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of personal

presence and attention as will reasonably control the conduct of such dog,

1377041 #1414148

unless accompanied by the owner or custodian. This subparagraph shall

not include a dog which is being used for hunting, supervised competition,

exhibition, or training for such activities if accompanied by the owner or

custodian, or a dog which is guarding, working, or herding livestock, as

defined in RSA 21: 34-a, II(a)(4), meaning that the owner or custodian

must be able to see or hear the dog, or have reasonable knowledge of

where the dog is hunting or herding, or where training is being conducted

or where trials are being held, provided that such dog does not have to be

within sight at all time;

(b) If it barks for sustained periods of more than ½ hour, or during the

night hours so as to disturb the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or area,

not including a dog which is guarding, working, or herding livestock, as

defined in RSA 21:34-a, II(a)(4);

(c) If it digs, scratches, or excretes, or causes waste or garbage to be

scattered on property other than its owner's;

(d) If any female dog in season (heat) is permitted to run at large or be off

the premises of the owner or keeper during this period except when being

exercised on a leash by a responsible adult. At all other times such dog

shall be confined within a building or enclosure in such manner that she

will not come in contact (except for intentional breeding purposes) with a

male dog. A female dog in heat shall not be used for hunting;

(e) If it growls, snaps at, runs after, or chases any person or persons not on

the premises of the owner or keeper;

(f) If it runs after, or chases bicycles, motor vehicles, motorcycles, or

other vehicles being driven, pulled or pushed on the streets, highways, or

public ways;

(g) If, whether alone or in a pack with other dogs, it bites, attacks, or preys

on game animals, domestic animals, fowl or human beings.

II-a. If the skin of a person has been punctured by a dog and the incident

was reported, including the identity of the dog and its owner, to the animal

officer, if any, or to the town clerk, such officer or clerk shall, within 24

hours, notify the injured person, or, in the case of a minor, the minor's

parent or guardian, whether, according to town records, the dog has been

appropriately immunized against rabies.

III. (a) Any person who fails, by appropriate action including but not

limited to restraining an animal from running at large, or otherwise

effectively abating a nuisance found such under the provisions of this

section, or who fails to comply with any other provisions of this section

after being so ordered, shall have the person's dog taken into custody by

the police of the city, constable of the town, or other person authorized by

the town and such disposition made of the dog as the court may order.

(b) Notwithstanding RSA 466:31-a, if a law enforcement officer does not

witness the nuisance behavior, the name of the complainant shall be

released as public information before any fine under RSA 466:31-a shall

be levied.

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 466:31

1377041 #1414148


466:30-a Dog Control Law.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, it shall be

unlawful for any dog to run at large, except when accompanied by

the owner or custodian, and when used for hunting, for guarding,

working, or herding livestock, as defined in RSA 21:34-a, II(a)(4),

for supervised competition and exhibition, or for training for such.

For the purpose of this section, “accompanied” means that the

owner or custodian must be able to see or hear, or both, or have

reasonable knowledge of where the dog is hunting, where training

is being conducted, where trials are being held, or where the dog is

guarding, working, or herding livestock. Nothing herein provided

shall mean that the dog must be within sight at all times.

II. In this section, “at large” means off the premises of the owner

or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of

personal presence and attention as will reasonably control the

conduct of such dog, unless accompanied by the owner or

custodian.

III. Any authorized person may seize, impound or restrain any dog

in violation of this section and deliver said dog to a person or

shelter authorized to board dogs. Such dogs shall be handled as

strays or abandoned dogs pursuant to applicable laws.

IV. In addition to impounding a dog found at large or in violation

of this section, any local law enforcement officer may issue, in the

name of the owner or keeper of such dog, a notice of violation for

a nuisance dog pursuant to RSA 466:31, II(a).

V. The provisions of this section shall not be effective in any city

or town unless adopted by a city or town pursuant to RSA

466:30b.

Source: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 466:30-a (West)


New Jersey

4:19-16. Liability of owner regardless of viciousness of dog

The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person

is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place,

including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for

such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless

1377041 #1414148

of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of

such viciousness.

For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the

private property of such owner when he is on the property in the

performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this

state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when

he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of

the owner thereof.


Source: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:19-16 (West)


New Mexico

UJI 13-506. LIABILITY OF DOG OWNER

An owner of a dog is liable for damages proximately caused by the

dog if the owner knew, or should have known, that the dog was

vicious or had a tendency or natural inclination to be vicious.[The

owner of such a dog is not liable to the person injured, if the

injured person had knowledge of the propensities of the dog and

wantonly excited it or voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself in

the way of the dog.]

DIRECTIONS FOR USE: This instruction should be used when

the issue and the evidence is that of damages from attack or bite by

a dog.

Source: NMRA, UJI 13-506

UJI 13-506 NMRA



New York

§ 123. Dangerous dogs

Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the

case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may

make a complaint of an attack or threatened attack upon a person,

companion animal as defined in section three hundred fifty of this

chapter, farm animal as defined in such section three hundred fifty,

1377041 #1414148

or a domestic animal as defined in subdivision seven of section

one hundred eight of this article to a dog control officer or police

officer of the appropriate municipality. Such officer shall

immediately inform the complainant of his or her right to

commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this

section and, if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous

dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself

or herself.

2. Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in

the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may,

and any dog control officer or police officer as provided in

subdivision one of this section shall, make a complaint under oath

or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or

threatened attack. Thereupon, the judge or justice shall

immediately determine if there is probable cause to believe the dog

is a dangerous dog and, if so, shall issue an order to any dog

control officer, peace officer, acting pursuant to his or her special

duties, or police officer directing such officer to immediately seize

such dog and hold the same pending judicial determination as

provided in this section. Whether or not the judge or justice finds

there is probable cause for such seizure, he or she shall, within five

days and upon written notice of not less than two days to the

owner of the dog, hold a hearing on the complaint. The petitioner

shall have the burden at such hearing to prove the dog is a

“dangerous dog” by clear and convincing evidence. If satisfied that

the dog is a dangerous dog, the judge or justice shall then order

neutering or spaying of the dog, microchipping of the dog and one

or more of the following as deemed appropriate under the

circumstances and as deemed necessary for the protection of the

public:

o (a) evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist,

a board certified veterinary behaviorist, or another

recognized expert in the field and completion of training or

other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert. The

owner of the dog shall be responsible for all costs

associated with evaluations and training ordered under this

section;

o (b) secure, humane confinement of the dog for a period of

time and in a manner deemed appropriate by the court but

in all instances in a manner designed to: (1) prevent escape

of the dog, (2) protect the public from unauthorized contact

with the dog, and (3) to protect the dog from the elements

1377041 #1414148

pursuant to section three hundred fifty-three-b of this

chapter. Such confinement shall not include lengthy

periods of tying or chaining;

o (c) restraint of the dog on a leash by an adult of at least

twenty-one years of age whenever the dog is on public

premises;

o (d) muzzling the dog whenever it is on public premises in a

manner that will prevent it from biting any person or

animal, but that shall not injure the dog or interfere with its

vision or respiration; or

o (e) maintenance of a liability insurance policy in an amount

determined by the court, but in no event in excess of one

hundred thousand dollars for personal injury or death

resulting from an attack by such dangerous dog.

3. Upon a finding that a dog is dangerous, the judge or justice may

order humane euthanasia or permanent confinement of the dog if

one of the following aggravating circumstances is established at

the judicial hearing held pursuant to subdivision two of this

section:

o (a) the dog, without justification, attacked a person causing

serious physical injury or death; or

o (b) the dog has a known vicious propensity as evidenced by

a previous unjustified attack on a person, which caused

serious physical injury or death; or

o (c) the dog, without justification, caused serious physical

injury or death to a companion animal, farm animal or

domestic animal, and has, in the past two years, caused

unjustified physical injury or death to a companion or farm

animal as evidenced by a “dangerous dog” finding pursuant

to the provisions of this section. An order of humane

euthanasia shall not be carried out until expiration of the

thirty day period provided for in subdivision five of this

section for filing a notice of appeal, unless the owner of the

dog has indicated to the judge in writing, his or her

intention to waive his or her right to appeal. Upon filing of

a notice of appeal, the order shall be automatically stayed

pending the outcome of the appeal.

4. A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the court determines

the conduct of the dog (a) was justified because the threat, injury

or damage was sustained by a person who at the time was

committing a crime or offense upon the owner or custodian of the

1377041 #1414148

dog or upon the property of the owner or custodian of the dog; (b)

was justified because the injured, threatened or killed person was

tormenting, abusing, assaulting or physically threatening the dog

or its offspring, or has in the past tormented, abused, assaulted or

physically threatened the dog or its offspring; (c) was justified

because the dog was responding to pain or injury, or was

protecting itself, its owner, custodian, or a member of its

household, its kennels or its offspring; or was justified because the

injured, threatened or killed companion animal, farm animal or

domestic animal was attacking or threatening to attack the dog or

its offspring. Testimony of a certified applied behaviorist, a board

certified veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert shall

be relevant to the court's determination as to whether the dog's

behavior was justified pursuant to the provisions of this

subdivision.

5. (a) The owner of a dog found to be a “dangerous dog” pursuant

to this section may appeal such determination, and/or the court's

order concerning disposition of the dog to the court having

jurisdiction to hear civil appeals in the county where the

“dangerous dog” finding was made. The owner shall commence

such appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the appropriate court

within thirty days of the final order pursuant to this section. Court

rules governing civil appeals in the appropriate jurisdiction shall

govern the appeal of a determination under this section.

o (b) Upon filing a notice of appeal from an order of humane

euthanasia pursuant to this section, such order shall be

automatically stayed pending final determination of any

appeal. In all other circumstances, the owner of the dog

may make application to the court to issue a stay of

disposition pending determination of the appeal.

6. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission,

negligently permits his or her dog to bite a person, service dog,

guide dog or hearing dog causing physical injury shall be subject

to a civil penalty not to exceed four hundred dollars in addition to

any other applicable penalties.


negligently permits his or her dog to bite a person causing serious

physical injury shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one

thousand five hundred dollars in addition to any other applicable

penalties. Any such penalty may be reduced by any amount which

is paid as restitution by the owner of the dog to the person or

1377041 #1414148

persons suffering serious physical injury as compensation for

unreimbursed medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages

resulting from such injury.


negligently permits his or her dog, which had previously been

determined to be dangerous pursuant to this article, to bite a person

causing serious physical injury, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor

punishable by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars, or by

a period of imprisonment not to exceed ninety days, or by both

such fine and imprisonment in addition to any other applicable

penalties. Any such fine may be reduced by any amount which is

paid as restitution by the owner of the dog to the person or persons

suffering serious physical injury as compensation for

unreimbursed medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages

resulting from such injury.

9. If any dog, which had previously been determined by a judge or

justice to be a dangerous dog, as defined in section one hundred

eight of this article, shall without justification kill or cause the

death of any person who is peaceably conducting himself or

herself in any place where he or she may lawfully be, regardless of

whether such dog escapes without fault of the owner, the owner

shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor in addition to any other

penalties.

10. The owner or lawful custodian of a dangerous dog shall, except

in the circumstances enumerated in subdivisions four and eleven of

this section, be strictly liable for medical costs resulting from

injury caused by such dog to a person, companion animal, farm

animal or domestic animal.

11. The owner shall not be liable pursuant to subdivision six,

seven, eight, nine or ten of this section if the dog was coming to

the aid or defense of a person during the commission or attempted

commission of a murder, robbery, burglary, arson, rape in the first

degree as defined in subdivision one or two of section 130.35 of

the penal law, criminal sexual act in the first degree as defined in

subdivision one or two of section 130.50 of the penal law or

kidnapping within the dwelling or upon the real property of the

owner of the dog and the dog injured or killed the person

committing such criminal activity.

12. Nothing contained in this section shall limit or abrogate any

claim or cause of action any person who is injured by a dog with a

vicious disposition or a vicious propensity may have under

1377041 #1414148

common law or by statute. The provisions of this section shall be

in addition to such common law and statutory remedies.

13. Nothing contained in this section shall restrict the rights and

powers derived from the provisions of title four of article twenty-

one of the public health law relating to rabies and any rule and

regulation adopted pursuant thereto.

14. Persons owning, possessing or harboring dangerous dogs shall

report the presence of such dangerous dogs pursuant to section two

hundred nine-cc of the general municipal law.

Source: N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123 (McKinney)


The governing body of any municipality may at any time by order require

that all dogs in such municipality shall be securely confined between

sunset and one hour after sunrise during the period of time designated in

the order, or, if no time is so designated, until the order is revoked

Source: McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 121


North Carolina

§ 130A-200. Confinement or leashing of vicious animals

A local health director may declare an animal to be vicious and a

menace to the public health when the animal has attacked a person

causing bodily harm without being teased, molested, provoked,

beaten, tortured or otherwise harmed. When an animal has been

declared to be vicious and a menace to the public health, the local

health director shall order the animal to be confined to its owner's

property. However, the animal may be permitted to leave its

owner's property when accompanied by a responsible adult and

restrained on a leash.

§ 67-4.2. Precautions against attacks by dangerous dogs

(a) It is unlawful for an owner to:

o (1) Leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's real

property unless the dog is confined indoors, in a securely

enclosed and locked pen, or in another structure designed

to restrain the dog;

o (2) Permit a dangerous dog to go beyond the owner's real

property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled or is

otherwise securely restrained and muzzled.

1377041 #1414148

(b) If the owner of a dangerous dog transfers ownership or

possession of the dog to another person (as defined in G.S. 12-

3(6)), the owner shall provide written notice to:

o (1) The authority that made the determination under this

Article, stating the name and address of the new owner or

possessor of the dog; and

o (2) The person taking ownership or possession of the dog,

specifying the dog's dangerous behavior and the authority's

determination.

(c) Violation of this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor

Source: N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 130A-200 (West), N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §

67-4.2 (West)


No person shall allow his dog over six months old to run at large in the

nighttime unaccompanied by the owner or by some member of the owner's

family, or some other person by the owner's permission. Any person

intentionally, knowingly, and willfully violating this section shall be

guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, and shall also be liable in damages to

any person injured or suffering loss to his property or chattels

Source: N.C.G.S.A. § 67-12


North Dakota

§ 42-03-01. When dogs are a public nuisance

Any dog that habitually molests a person traveling peaceably on

the public road or street is a public nuisance. Upon written

complaint to a district or municipal judge describing the dog,

giving the name of the dog and the dog's owner if known, and, if

not, so stating, and alleging that the dog is a public nuisance, the

district or municipal judge shall give notice to the dog's owner that

a complaint has been filed that the dog has been molesting certain

persons and that the owner shall take the necessary action to

prevent the dog from any further violations of this chapter. If the

district or municipal judge receives a further complaint regarding

the dog after notice has been given under this section, the judge

shall issue a summons, if the owner is known, commanding the

owner to appear before the judge in the same manner as other

court summonses.

Source: N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 42-03-01 (West)

1377041 #1414148



Ohio

955.28 Dog may be killed for certain acts; owner liable for damages

(A) Subject to divisions (A)(2) and (3) of section 955.261 of the

Revised Code, a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing

fashion or apparent attitude of attack, that attempts to bite or

otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures a person or a dog that

chases, threatens, harasses, injures, or kills livestock, poultry, other

domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another

person, except a cat or another dog, can be killed at the time of that

chasing, threatening, harassment, approaching, attempt, killing, or

injury. If, in attempting to kill such a dog, a person wounds it, the

person is not liable to prosecution under the penal laws that punish

cruelty to animals. Nothing in this section precludes a law

enforcement officer from killing a dog that attacks a police dog as

defined in section 2921.321 of the Revised Code.

(B) The owner, keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages

for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that is caused by

the dog, unless the injury, death, or loss was caused to the person

or property of an individual who, at the time, was committing or

attempting to commit criminal trespass or another criminal offense

other than a minor misdemeanor on the property of the owner,

keeper, or harborer, or was committing or attempting to commit a

criminal offense other than a minor misdemeanor against any

person, or was teasing, tormenting, or abusing the dog on the

owner's, keeper's, or harborer's property. Additionally, the owner,

keeper, or harborer of a dog is liable in damages for any injury,

death, or loss to person or property that is caused by the dog if the

injury, death, or loss was caused to the person or property of an

individual who, at the time of the injury, death, or loss, was on the

property of the owner, keeper, or harborer solely for the purpose of

engaging in door-to-door sales or other solicitations regardless of

whether the individual was in compliance with any requirement to

obtain a permit or license to engage in door-to-door sales or other

solicitations established by the political subdivision in which the

property of the owner, keeper, or harborer is located, provided that

the person was not committing a criminal offense other than a

minor misdemeanor or was not teasing, tormenting, or abusing the

1377041 #1414148

dog.

Source: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.28 (West)

Add Update to Bite Law:

Under „Vicious Dogs‟ add that the owner of a dog who bites a person

without provocation may be subject to criminal prosecution.

Ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include the restraint of dogs,

except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any

dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of

hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter

RC § 955.221


Oklahoma

§ 42.1. Personal injury by dog--Liability of owner

The owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the

full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without

provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or

on a place where he has a lawful right to be.


Source: Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 4, § 42.1 (West)


Oregon

609.093. Considerations as to disposition of chasing, menacing or

biting dog

In determining whether a dog should be killed as provided under

ORS 609.090 (7) or 609.990 (6), a dog control board, county

governing body or court shall consider the following factors:

o (1) If the dog has bitten a person, the circumstances and

severity of the bite;

o (2) Whether the keeper has a history of maintaining dogs

that are a public nuisance;

o (3) The impact of keeper actions on the behavior of the

dog;

o (4) The ability and inclination of the keeper to prevent the

dog from chasing or menacing another person on premises

1377041 #1414148

other than the premises from which the keeper may

lawfully exclude others or from biting another person;

o (5) Whether the dog can be relocated to a secure facility;

o (6) The effect that a transfer of the keeping of the dog to

another person would have on ensuring the health and

safety of the public;

o (7) Behavior by the dog before or since the biting, chasing

or menacing; and

o (8) Any other factors that the board, governing body or

court may deem relevant.

Source: Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 609.093 (West)



Pennsylvania

§ 459-502. Dog bites; detention and isolation of dogs

(a) Confinement.--Any dog which bites or attacks a human being

shall be confined in quarters approved by a designated employee

of the Department of Health, a State dog warden or employee of

the Department of Agriculture, an animal control officer or a

police officer. The dog may be detained and isolated in an

approved kennel or at the dog owner's property or at another

location approved by the investigating officer. Where the dog is

detained is at the discretion of the investigating officer. All dogs so

detained must be isolated for a minimum of ten days. Any costs

incurred in the detaining and isolation of the dog shall be paid by

the offending dog's owner or keeper or both. If the dog's owner or

keeper is not known, the Commonwealth is responsible for all

reasonable costs for holding and detaining the dog.

(b) Bite victims.--The following shall apply:

o (1) The investigating officer shall be responsible for

notifying the bite victim of the medical results of the

offending dog's confinement. Any cost to the victim for

medical treatment resulting from an attacking or biting dog

must be paid fully by the owner or keeper of the dog. The

Commonwealth shall not be liable for medical treatment

costs to the victim.

o (2)(i) For the purpose of this subsection, the term “medical

results of the offending dog's confinement” shall mean,

except as provided in subparagraph (ii), information as to

1377041 #1414148

whether the quarantined dog is still alive and whether it is

exhibiting any signs of being infected with the rabies virus.

(ii) If a nonlethal test for rabies is developed, the

term shall mean the results of the test and not the

meaning given in subparagraph (i).

(c) Exception.--When a dog that bites or attacks a human being is

a service dog or a police work dog in the performance of duties,

the dog need not be confined if it is under the active supervision of

a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine.

§ 459-504-A. Control of dangerous dogs

It is unlawful for an owner or keeper of a dangerous dog to permit

the dog to be outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is

muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash and under

physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle shall be

made in a manner that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere

with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any

person or animal or from destroying property with its teeth.

Source: Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, § 459-502 (West), Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 3, § 459-504-A

(West)


Confinement and control.--It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of

any dog to fail to keep at all times the dog in any of the following

manners:

(1) confined within the premises of the owner;

(2) firmly secured by means of a collar and chain or other device so that it

cannot stray beyond the premises on which it is secured; or

(3) under the reasonable control of some person, or when engaged in

lawful hunting, exhibition, performance events or field training

Source: 3 P.S. § 459-305


Rhode Island

Determination of a vicious dog

(a) In the event that the dog officer or law enforcement officer has

probable cause to believe that a dog is vicious, the chief dog officer or his

or her immediate supervisor or the chief of police, or his or her designee,

is empowered to convene a hearing for the purpose of determining

whether or not the dog in question should be declared vicious. The dog

officer or chief of police shall conduct or cause to be conducted an

1377041 #1414148

investigation and shall notify the owner or keeper of the dog that a hearing

will be held, at which time he or she may have the opportunity to present

evidence why the dog should not be declared vicious. The hearing shall be

held promptly within no less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) days

after service of notice upon the owner or keeper of the dog while said

notice shall be served upon the owner. The hearing shall be informal and

shall be open to the public. The hearing shall be conducted by a panel of

three (3) persons which shall consist of the chief of police or his or her

designee, the executive director of the society for the prevention of cruelty

to animals (S.P.C.A.) or his or her designee, and a person chosen by the

chief of police and the executive director of the S.P.C.A. All members of

the panel shall have one vote in making a determination whether or not the

dog in question is vicious. Hearing officers shall have immunity.

(b) After the hearing, the owner or keeper of the dog shall be notified in

writing of the determination. If a determination is made that the dog is

vicious, the owner or keeper shall comply with this chapter in accordance

with a time schedule established by the dog officer or chief of police, but

in no case more than thirty (30) days subsequent to the date of the

determination. If the owner or keeper of the dog contests the

determination, he or she may, within five (5) days of that determination,

bring a petition in the district court within the judicial district where the

dog is owned or kept, praying that the court conduct its own hearing on

whether or not the dog should be declared vicious. After service of notice

upon the dog officer, the court shall conduct a hearing de novo and make

its own determination as to viciousness. The hearing shall be conducted

within seven (7) days of the service of the notice upon the dog officer or

law enforcement officer involved. The issue shall be decided upon the

preponderance of the evidence. If the court rules the dog to be vicious, the

court may establish a time schedule to insure compliance with this

chapter, but in no case more than thirty (30) days subsequent to the date of

the court's determination. If the owner has not complied with the

provisions of this chapter at the end of thirty (30) days from the written

notification that the dog is vicious, the dog may be euthanized.

(c) The court may decide all issues for or against the owner or keeper of

the dog regardless of the fact that the owner or keeper fails to appear at the

hearing.

(d) The determination of the district court shall be final and conclusive

upon all parties. The dog officer or any law enforcement officer shall have

the right to convene a hearing under this section for any subsequent

actions of the dog.

(e) In the event that the dog officer or law enforcement officer has

probable cause to believe that the dog in question is vicious and may pose

a threat of serious harm to human beings or other domestic animals, the

dog officer or law enforcement officer may seize and impound the dog

pending the hearings. The owner or keeper of the dog is liable to the city

or town where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping

the dog. The city or town council may establish by ordinance a schedule

of those costs and expenses.

1377041 #1414148

Source: R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 4-13.1-11 (West)


No Updates to Leash Laws (no statewide statute)

South Carolina

§ 47-3-110. Liability of owner or person having dog in his care or

keeping. Whenever any person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog

while the person is in a public place or is lawfully in a private

place, including the property of the owner of the dog or other

person having the dog in his care or keeping, the owner of the dog

or other person having the dog in his care or keeping is liable for

the damages suffered by the person bitten or otherwise attacked.

For the purposes of this section, a person bitten or otherwise

attacked is lawfully in a private place, including the property of the

owner of the dog or other person having the dog in his care or

keeping, when the person bitten or otherwise attacked is on the

property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the

laws of this State, by the ordinances of any political subdivision of

this State, by the laws of the United States of America, including,

but not limited to, postal regulations, or when the person bitten or

otherwise attacked is on the property upon the invitation, express

or implied, of the owner of the property or of any lawful tenant or

resident of the property. If a person provokes a dog into attacking

him then the owner of the dog is not liable.

Source: S.C. Code Ann. § 47-3-110


It is unlawful in any county or municipality adopting penalty provisions

pursuant to the provisions of this article for any dog or cat owner or other

keeper of a dog or cat to allow his dog to run at large off of property

owned, rented, or controlled by him

Source: S.C. Code 1976 § 47-3-50

It shall be unlawful for any person at any park or facility under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism to bring a

dog or any other animal into the park or facility unless it is crated, caged,

or upon a leash not longer than six feet or otherwise under physically

1377041 #1414148

restrictive control at all times

Source: S.C. Code 1976 § 51-3-145

Update to Leash Law:

In state parks, dogs must be leashed at all times.

South Dakota

40-34-14. Vicious dog defined

For the purposes of §§ 40-34-13 to 40-34-15, inclusive, a vicious dog is:

(1) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious or terrorizing manner

approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, inflicts injury, assaults,

or otherwise attacks a human being upon the streets, sidewalks, or any

public grounds or places; or

(2) Any dog which, on private property, when unprovoked, in a vicious or

terrifying manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or

inflicts injury, or otherwise attacks a mailman, meter reader, serviceman,

journeyman, delivery man, or other employed person who is on private

property by reason of permission of the owner or occupant of such

property or who is on private property by reason of a course of dealing

with the owner of such private property.

40-34-13. Ownership of vicious dog as public nuisance

Any person owning or keeping a vicious dog as defined in §§ 40-34-13 to

40-34-15, inclusive, has committed a public nuisance and is subject to the

provisions of §§ 21-10-5 and 21-10-9.

Source: S.D. Codified Laws § 40-34-13 to 14



Tennessee

§ 44-8-413. Injury caused by dogs; civil liability; exceptions; limitations

(a)(1) The owner of a dog has a duty to keep that dog under reasonable

control at all times, and to keep that dog from running at large. A person

who breaches that duty is subject to civil liability for any damages

suffered by a person who is injured by the dog while in a public place or

lawfully in or on the private property of another.

1377041 #1414148

(2) The owner may be held liable regardless of whether the dog has shown

any dangerous propensities or whether the dog's owner knew or should

have known of the dog's dangerous propensities.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not be construed to impose liability upon the

owner of the dog if:

(1) The dog is a police or military dog, the injury occurred during the

course of the dog's official duties and the person injured was a party to, a

participant in or suspected of being a party to or participant in the act or

conduct that prompted the police or military to utilize the services of the

dog;

(2) The injured person was trespassing upon the private, nonresidential

property of the dog's owner;

(3) The injury occurred while the dog was protecting the dog's owner or

other innocent party from attack by the injured person or a dog owned by

the injured person;

(4) The injury occurred while the dog was securely confined in a kennel,

crate or other enclosure; or

(5) The injury occurred as a result of the injured person enticing,

disturbing, alarming, harassing, or otherwise provoking the dog.

(c)(1) If a dog causes damage to a person while the person is on

residential, farm or other noncommercial property, and the dog's owner is

the owner of the property, or is on the property by permission of the

owner or as a lawful tenant or lessee, in any civil action based upon such

damages brought against the owner of the dog, the claimant shall be

required to establish that the dog's owner knew or should have known of

the dog's dangerous propensities.

(2) The element of proof required by subdivision (c)(1) shall be in

addition to any other elements the claimant may be required to prove in

order to establish a claim under the prevailing Tennessee law of premises

liability or comparative fault.

(d) The statute of limitations for an action brought pursuant to this section

shall be the same as provided in § 28-3-104, for personal injury actions.

(e) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Owner” means a person who, at the time of the damage caused to

another, regularly harbors, keeps or exercises control over the dog, but

does not include a person who, at the time of the damage, is temporarily

1377041 #1414148

harboring, keeping or exercising control over the dog; and

(2) “Running at large” means a dog goes uncontrolled by the dog's owner

upon the premises of another without the consent of the owner of the

premises, or other person authorized to give consent, or goes uncontrolled

by the owner upon a highway, public road, street or any other place open

to the public generally.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 (West)



Texas § 822.005. Attack by Dog

(a) A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dog and

the person:

(1) with criminal negligence, as defined by Section 6.03, Penal Code, fails

to secure the dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on another

person that occurs at a location other than the owner's real property or in

or on the owner's motor vehicle or boat and that causes serious bodily

injury, as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, or death to the other

person; or

(2) knows the dog is a dangerous dog by learning in a manner described

by Section 822.042(g) that the person is the owner of a dangerous dog,

and the dangerous dog makes an unprovoked attack on another person that

occurs at a location other than a secure enclosure in which the dog is

restrained in accordance with Subchapter D and that causes serious bodily

injury, as defined by Section 822.001, or death to the other person.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree unless the

attack causes death, in which event the offense is a felony of the second

degree.

(c) If a person is found guilty of an offense under this section, the court

may order the dog destroyed by a person listed in Section 822.004.

(d) A person who is subject to prosecution under this section and under

any other law may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.

Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 822.005 (West)

§ 822.042. Requirements for Owner of Dangerous Dog

(a) Not later than the 30th day after a person learns that the person is the

owner of a dangerous dog, the person shall:

(1) register the dangerous dog with the animal control authority for the

1377041 #1414148

area in which the dog is kept;

(2) restrain the dangerous dog at all times on a leash in the immediate

control of a person or in a secure enclosure;

(3) obtain liability insurance coverage or show financial responsibility in

an amount of at least $100,000 to cover damages resulting from an attack

by the dangerous dog causing bodily injury to a person and provide proof

of the required liability insurance coverage or financial responsibility to

the animal control authority for the area in which the dog is kept; and

(4) comply with an applicable municipal or county regulation,

requirement, or restriction on dangerous dogs.

(b) The owner of a dangerous dog who does not comply with Subsection

(a) shall deliver the dog to the animal control authority not later than the

30th day after the owner learns that the dog is a dangerous dog.

(c) If, on application of any person, a justice court, county court, or

municipal court finds, after notice and hearing as provided by Section

822.0423, that the owner of a dangerous dog has failed to comply with

Subsection (a) or (b), the court shall order the animal control authority to

seize the dog and shall issue a warrant authorizing the seizure. The

authority shall seize the dog or order its seizure and shall provide for the

impoundment of the dog in secure and humane conditions.

(d) The owner shall pay any cost or fee assessed by the municipality or

county related to the seizure, acceptance, impoundment, or destruction of

the dog. The governing body of the municipality or county may prescribe

the amount of the fees.

(e) The court shall order the animal control authority to humanely destroy

the dog if the owner has not complied with Subsection (a) before the 11th

day after the date on which the dog is seized or delivered to the authority.

The court shall order the authority to return the dog to the owner if the

owner complies with Subsection (a) before the 11th day after the date on

which the dog is seized or delivered to the authority.

(f) The court may order the humane destruction of a dog if the owner of

the dog has not been located before the 15th day after the seizure and

impoundment of the dog.

(g) For purposes of this section, a person learns that the person is the

owner of a dangerous dog when:

(1) the owner knows of an attack described in Section 822.041(2)(A) or

(B);

1377041 #1414148

(2) the owner receives notice that a justice court, county court, or

municipal court has found that the dog is a dangerous dog under Section

822.0423; or

(3) the owner is informed by the animal control authority that the dog is a

dangerous dog under Section 822.0421.

Source: Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 822.042 (West)



Utah § 18-1-1. Liability of owners--Scienter--Dogs used in law enforcement

(1) Every person owning or keeping a dog is liable in damages for injury

committed by the dog, and it is not necessary in the action brought

therefor to allege or prove that the dog was of a vicious or mischievous

disposition or that the owner or keeper of the dog knew that it was vicious

or mischievous.

(2) Notwithstanding Subsection (1), neither the state nor any county, city,

or town in the state nor any peace officer employed by any of them shall

be liable in damages for injury committed by a dog, if:

(a) the dog has been trained to assist in law enforcement; and

(b) the injury occurs while the dog is reasonably and carefully being used

in the apprehension, arrest, or location of a suspected offender or in

maintaining or controlling the public order.

Source: Utah Code Ann. § 18-1-1 (West)



Vermont


Source: Westlaw (showing no applicable statute); Confirmed by

http://dogbitelaw.com/one-bite-state/vermont-dog-bite-law.html


Virginia

1377041 #1414148

Most local jurisdictions in West Virginia have adopted some kind of a dog

leash law. There is no state-wide dog leash law. However, Virginia does

have a state-wide law governing “dangerous dogs.”

The law begins by defining what exactly is a dangerous dog or a vicious

dog:

“Dangerous dog” means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten,

attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog

or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat. When a dog

attacks or bites a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or

biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous: (i) if no serious physical injury

as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the dog or cat as

a result of the attack or bite; (ii) if both animals are owned by the same

person; (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting

dog's owner or custodian; or (iv) for other good cause as determined by

the court.

“Vicious dog” means a canine or canine crossbreed that has: (i) killed a

person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites,

serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment

of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted

in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal

control officer as authorized by ordinance, that it is a dangerous dog,

provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.

Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 (West)

The Virginia statute further imposes criminal penalties on the owners of

dangerous dogs:

Any owner or custodian of a canine or canine crossbreed or other animal

is guilty of a:

1. Class 2 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously

declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration

arose out of a separate and distinct incident, attacks and injures or kills a

cat or dog that is a companion animal belonging to another person;

2. Class 1 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously

declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration

arose out of a separate and distinct incident, bites a human being or

attacks a human being causing bodily injury; or

3. Class 6 felony if any owner or custodian whose willful act or omission

in the care, control, or containment of a canine, canine crossbreed, or

other animal is so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless

disregard for human life, and is the proximate cause of such dog or other

animal attacking and causing serious bodily injury to any person.

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any animal that, at the

1377041 #1414148

time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was

protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or

custodian's property, or when the animal is a police dog that is engaged in

the performance of its duties at the time of the attack.

Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 (West)



Washington

16.08.040. Dog bites—Liability.

The owner of any dog which shall bite any person while such person is

in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place including the

property of the owner of such dog, shall be liable for such damages as

may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former

viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.

Source: West's RCWA 16.08.010

16.08.090. Dangerous dogs--Requirements for restraint--Potentially

dangerous dogs--Dogs not declared dangerous

(1) It is unlawful for an owner of a dangerous dog to permit the dog to be

outside the proper enclosure unless the dog is muzzled and restrained by a

substantial chain or leash and under physical restraint of a responsible

person. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to

the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from

biting any person or animal.

(2) Potentially dangerous dogs shall be regulated only by local, municipal,

and county ordinances. Nothing in this section limits restrictions local

jurisdictions may place on owners of potentially dangerous dogs.

(3) Dogs shall not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage

was sustained by a person who, at the time, was committing a wilful

trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog,

or was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has, in the past, been

observed or reported to have tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog or

was committing or attempting to commit a crime.

Source: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 16.08.090 (West)



West Virginia

Although West Virginia has a dog bite statute, it is limited to dogs running

1377041 #1414148

at large.

§ 19-20-13. Dog running at large; liability of owner.

Any owner or keeper of any dog who permits such dog to run at large

shall be liable for any damages inflicted upon the person or property of

another by such dog while so running at large.

The West Virginia statute is strict liability, which means that the plaintiff

does not have to prove that the dog‟s owner knew the dog was dangerous

or that the dog had attacked people before.

However, if the dog is on the leash or on the owner‟s property, then West

Virginia applies the “one bite rule.” Under this rule, a dog's owner is liable

for injuries the dog causes only if the owner knew or had reason to know

that the dog was likely to cause that kind of injury. So if your dog tries to

bite someone, from that moment on you're on notice that the dog is

dangerous, and you will be liable if the dog later bites

Source: W. Va. Code 19-20-13

§ 19-20-20. Keeping vicious dogs; humane officers may kill such dogs

Except as provided in section twenty-one of this article, no person shall

own, keep or harbor any dog known by him to be vicious, dangerous, or in

the habit of biting or attacking other persons, whether or not such dog

wears a tag or muzzle. Upon satisfactory proof before a circuit court or

magistrate that such dog is vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or

attacking other persons or other dogs or animals, the judge may authorize

the humane officer to cause such dog to be killed.

W. Va. Code Ann. § 19-20-20 (West)

No Update to Bite or Leash Law

Wisconsin

174.02. Owner's liability for damage caused by dog

(1) Liability for injury.

(a) Without notice. [First Attack or Bite] The owner of a

dog is liable for the full amount of damages caused by

the dog injuring or causing injury to a person, domestic

animal or property.

(b) After notice. [Second Attack or Bite] The owner of a

dog is liable for 2 times the full amount of damages

caused by the dog injuring or causing injury to a person,

domestic animal or property if the owner was notified or

knew that the dog previously injured or caused injury to

a person, domestic animal or property.

1377041 #1414148

Source: WI ST 173.01-40


A dog is considered to be running at large if it is off the premises of its owner

and not under the control of the owner or some other person.

A dog that is actively engaged in a legal hunting activity, including training, is

not considered to be running at large if the dog is monitored or supervised by a

person and the dog is on land that is open to hunting or on land on which the

person has obtained permission to hunt or to train a dog.

Dog running at large or untagged dog subject to impoundment. An officer shall

attempt to capture and restrain any dog running at large and any untagged dog

Source: W.S.A. 174.042

Wyoming

No Updates to Bite Law (no statewide statute)

§ 11-31-301(h) Animals Running at Large

Any animal attacking any person in a vicious manner or that bites

any person may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal

control officer and held in quarantine for at least ten (10) days or

as long as necessary as determined by the Wyoming state health

officer after the attack to determine whether the animal has any

disease which may be communicated to humans. Home quarantine

may be allowed as determined by the animal control officer or the

county sheriff if the animal's owner or custodian presents a valid

rabies vaccination certificate showing the animal has been

vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian. The costs of

impoundment, quarantine and testing shall be paid by the owner or

custodian of the animal. Any animal which attacks any person in a

vicious manner may be destroyed or the owner or custodian of the

animal may be fined not more than two hundred dollars ($200.00),

or both. Proof of the fact that the animal has bitten or attacked any

person at any place where a person is legally entitled to be is

evidence that the animal is vicious within the meaning of this

section. A copy of any animal control officer report regarding the

animal bite shall be submitted to the state health officer.

Update to Leash Law:

A dog running at large may be declared a public nuisance.

1377041 #1414148

dog bite victim representation -...

Documents