Intro
– some think animals don’t feel bc they don’t think
– others say they think and learn to grow over time
– American system/society based on animals as automatons (like PROPERTY)
o No different from a table or lamp
o Animals not held responsible for their actions, but at same time not viewed as sentient beings (capable of feeling pain or pleasure)
– If viewed as sentient, where to draw the line (fleas on dogs, chickens protected?)
o Farm animals usually not covered in acts bc they are viewed different to us in that circumstance. (we use them for something)
– Animal law is part of a social justice and civil rights movement!!
o Human = compassion
o Want to give animals rights commensurate with their abilities
§ Need to educate, advocate, legislate, and litigate
· Animals risk their lives to save humans and we view them as expendable property (Dog, Norman)
o Can kill dog for no reason as long as it’s humane
o Dogs given away/sold
o 5-6 thousand killed per yr in sheters
o puppy mills (before were allowed to leave dog in closed environment for 24 hrs w/ no contact if had food/water)
o dog fighting
o eaten in other countries/skinned
o mislabeled clothing
· Many irresponsible owners don’t spay/neuter cats and they form colonies, despite their abilities (Scarlett)
· Chimps (Washoe) have 95% intelligence of human – intelligent and creative
o Sign when wanted compassion and to describe watermelon (juice candy) and swan (water bird)
§ But used for experimentation (in isolation)
· Pigs just a bright as dogs
o Placed in pens w/ no normal pig activity
o Slaughtered by having necks cut and bleeding out
o Virtually no protection from animal cruelty
– Law hasn’t kept up with what we know about animals being capable of
– some ppl were raised to believe that animals were made to serve humans and we have dominion over them
o animals have a tremendous ability to remember, have grieving rituals
§ The more we learn about animals, the more we realize that perhaps animals should NOT be considered property, but this is a choice whether we should include them in our moral universe
Animal Ownership
Civil Liability of Owners/Landlords:
– Fact pattern about boy being bit by owners’ dog living in rented apt
o The common law cause of action for scienter permits a victim to recover full compensation if the dog previously bit another person without justification or indicated a tendency to do so.
o Pennsylvania dog bite law creates categories of victims and treats them differently. The source of the state’s dog bite law is the common law, the “Dog Law,”
§ If the dog has never bitten before, this state’s dog bite law offers two different remedies that depend upon the degree of injury. Injuries are classified as either severe or non-severe.
· The severely injured victim can make a Dog Law claim against the dog owner for medical expenses and all other losses and legal damages. The victim must prove that the dog inflicted severe injury on him without provocation. It does not matter whether the dog previously bit a person prior to biting this victim. The basis of this claim was set forth in the Miller and Hake decisions.
· The non-severely injured victim can make a Dog Law claim against the dog owner, but the remedy is limited to only the medical expenses. (Sec. 502, subdivision (b) of the Dangerous Dog Statute: “Any cost to the victim for medical treatment resulting from an attacking or biting dog must be paid fully by the owner of such dog.”) The victim only has to prove that the defendant was the owner of the dog.
o in the fact pattern, this is negligence
§ In PA, where the owner knows or should have known of their animal’s dangerous propensity, there should be a cause of action for negligence against owner.
§ a dog can be considered to have shown vicious tendencies even though has never bit anyone AND just bc a dog bit someone doesn’t mean he has vicious tendencies
· (Owner not liab unless she knows or has a reason to know animal will display propensities)
· Before civil liab for animal bite attaches, D must know or have reason to know animal will display vicious tendencies – Kineley v. Bierly
o See issues on FMV (if can get another mongrel from pound, why have to pay vet expenses) and other damages below for situation where another dog is hurt
o Exceptions to common law on liability
§ If victim was a trespasser
§ If victim was a vet, treating animal at the time
§ If victim was committing a felony
§ If dog was assisting law enforcement
o Exceptions to PA liab
§ threat/injury/damage was sustained by person committing a willful trespass or other tort on owner’s land at time of attack
§ If victim had tormented/abused/assaulted dog in past
§ If victim was committing a crime at the time of attack
o Landlord responsible? – only if:
· Had knowledge of the presence of animal
· Knew or should have known of dog’s dangerous propensity
· Was able to remove the dog
o (Have the responsibility to find out the nature of dogs on their property)
o NOTICE: Landlords have to have ACTUAL knowledge, while Owners just have to have knowledge or reason to know
– Proving Vicious Propensities
o Complaints concerning animal
o Dog fighting with other dogs
o Frequent confinement of animal
o Warning signs on premises
o Statements by owner of dog’s character
Criminal Liab for Owners Harboring a Dangerous Dog:
– if a dog WITHOUT PROVOCATION
o injures
it as an equitable distribution issue
o That it’s “unique property” and this is the way they chose to deal with it
o Few cts look to best interests of animal
§ De Sanctis v. Pritchard
· The husband and wife divorced. During marriage, wife bought a dog. Pursuant to their divorce, parties entered into a property settlement dealing with the dog’s future. agreement stated that the dog was the wife’s property, and the wife was to have full custody. Furthermore, the agreement provided for an arrangement allowing the husband to visit the dog. Afterwards, the wife moved away and no longer made the dog available for the husband’s visits. The husband filed a complaint in equity.
· The appellate court found that any terms set forth in the agreement were void to the extent that they attempted to award custodial visitation with, or shared custody of, personal property.
· Because the dog was the wife’s personal property, the wife could eliminate the husband’s access to the dog.
– Underhill v. Wind?
o Negligence Per Se
§ If you violate a (constitutional) statute
· Person had to fail to use reasonable care in violating
· Violation of statute needs to cause harm the statute was intended to avoid
o Woman rented apt to neice. Niece had 2 rotweilers who did extensive damage to the apt, so she was going to move to another apt the aunt owned. Aunt said you can’t take the dogs to the new home. Must get rid of them. Neice asked for 2 weeks in living in new home to find new home and aunt agreed. She didn’t find a new home. 6 mos later dogs got out and did severe injury to girl walking down street. 2 Samaritans came by and helped and they too got hurt. Before this happened, the niece, had her dogs get out of house 2 times before bc of a faulty latch on door. Aunt didn’t know whether the dogs were still staying for the 2 weeks. Could landlord be held liab for the injuries?? Under what theory? Could tenant be held liable
o Is a Law against animals running at large! – either have to be:
§ Confined to premises
§ Within reasonable voice control
§ On a leash
o Latch didn’t work properly, so should owner reasonably be responsible for violating leash rule?
– In Re Capers Estate
o Will provision
