My ex husband and I had a high conflict divorce/custody battle. We have limited communication. I have sole legal and physical custody and he has every other weekend. Our 10 year old child was bitten on the face when he tried to give the dog a kiss...
Regardless of his status as a former spouse, simply as a dog owner your ex can be held “strictly liable” for dangerous behavior by the dog if he knew or should have known about the dog’s dangerous propensities to bite or attack, whether in anger or in play. He could also be considered negligent for a failure to confine and/or control his dog if he was careless in failing to prevent the risk of harm. Dog owners always have a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury by their dog.
Additionally, as the dog's owner he could also be liable under a theory called “negligence per se” if what happened violated a city, county, or state ordinance on animal control, since local ordinances can set the standard of conduct defining what is reasonable in a negligence action if: 1) the violation was the cause of the injury, 2) the plaintiff was within the class of persons intended to be protected by the ordinance, and 3) the plaintiff’s injury was within the area of risk intended to be avoided by the ordinance.
Finally, it is not as important as it once was about the dog's previous bite history. The former so-called “one bite” rule does not apply in Oregon; we have a propensity rule instead. A prior biting or lunging incident by a dog is not necessarily determinative of a dangerous propensity, but may be if the facts of the prior incident match those of the later event. Even a “beware of dog” sign may raise a question as to whether it is an admission of knowledge of viciousness. You need to carefully consider what you might want to do to hold the ex legally responsible for the serious consequences of this incident.See question
I had the dog for 10 months and have been ill. But now I want her back as my doctors feel she was good for my recovery. They have had her 5 days.
A useful answer to your question really depends on other questions being answered first: To whom did you give the dog? Under what circumstances was it given? Why did you give it away? Additional information is required to determine if it was even a gift in the first place, if there is a legal basis to revoke the gift, or if you are bound by what happened.See question
I enter the business for the first time. As I walked into the entry of the business I was met by two agents of the company and was told I can not bring in my dog. I replied with showing the service registration card and stated that he is my servic...
Under state and federal statutes regarding assistance animals, privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Both sets of statutes, state and federal, require these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed. A dog individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability is considered a) a service animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or b) an assistance animal under Oregon state statute, regardless of whether the animal has been licensed or certified by a state or local government.
If a business is not certain that an animal is a service animal, it may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability. Documentation is generally not required as a condition for providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal, and the business may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting the service animal to accompany the person with a disability. The service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual with a disability to all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. An individual with a service animal may not be segregated from other customers.
Since a service animal is not a pet, state and federal law requires business owners to modify any "no pets" policy to allow the use of a service animal by a person with a disability. If the business refuses to admit a service animal on the basis of local health department regulations or other state or local laws, it violates the ADA, which provides greater protection for individuals with disabilities and takes priority over local or state laws or regulations.
A business may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from its premises when the animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. It may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.
A friend of mine recently passed away and we are now caring for her elderly dog. Two of my friend's family members attempted to care for the dog but d/t her amount of medical issues, did not want to deal with the trouble. I was told that my frie...
If the friend had a will or any sort of substantial estate at all, then there is a fairly good chance that it was then placed into probate, and that a probate court in the county in which your friend passed has an ongoing civil proceeding in which the will is being executed or the estate is being managed and distributed. That probate proceeding, if it exists, is a good venue in which others can learn about whether a trust exists, if the dog is part of the estate, who is supposed to be taking care of the dog's expenses, etc. If no probate proceeding has been initiated by the friend's own relatives, even one who is not related but still has an 'interest" in the estate (as in has property of the estate that they claim a right to) may be able to start one anyway. In a sense, the answer to your question is a slightly qualified, yes: there is a way to find out what the trust says, including by not "going through" the decedent's family itself.See question
At the end of last year I agreed to take on the responsibilities for a horse that was owned by a family friend that was being kept on our property. He told me she was about 14 years old. she wasn't being taken care of at the last location he had ...
Reading the generic criminal statute triggered by some accusation that your friend neglected a horse won't address your actual concern, which is about your own civil options as to what to do with the horse. Horses being simply personal properties in which their ownership can be transferred from one person to another via the operation of law, then your question is answered by a civil statute, ORS 87.152, which describes the statutory lien you possess enabling you to become the property's legal owner - as long as the statutory scheme is correctly followed. You are a lienholder, and to preserve your rights as a lienholder you should follow the assertion, perfection, and foreclosure rules relating to possessory liens. Beware: Were you to have the friend "sign over" the horse to you, you would add to, not subtract from, your initial problem since that transfer would then create two new worries: a) you would have lost or waived the valuable lien rights you had, and b) you would potentially increase your own exposure to some law enforcement agency including you in their criminal investigation or accusation. At least please seriously consider that there are both civil and criminal consequences to you personally in casually taking on obligations as to the horse through any route other than a formal lien foreclosure.See question
I was in the middle of a lawsuit (and still am) for possession of a dog I had for 2 1/2 years. The best complaint criteria is gift causa mortis, as I thought I was going to die when I rehomed him. Now, the lawyer who was helping me has been laid...
I disagree with the previous answer: in fact this IS an animal law question and it has an answer, very likely one helpful to solving the client's problem. The main question to be asked is not about the previous attorney (although that problem can be solved as well) but is about actually fixing the client's legal issue, and that is can the gift be validly revoked? The answer to that question entails simply determining if the correct conditions occurred to defeat the gift: (1) Recovery of the donor from sickness or delivery from peril; (2) revocation before death; (3) death of donee before death of donor. Allen v. Hendrick, 206 P. 733, 735 (Or. 1922). Any one of those scenarios entitles the client to be declared owner of the animal and to recover possession of the animal. That answer will also then dictate the propriety of what the previous attorney did or did not do to aid the client in the goal of recovery.See question
If someone gives you a animal to board until they get their own place and they don't do wellness checkups or supply you with anything for the pet. If you go and get the pet chipped and get all it's shots done, legally can you claim ownership over ...
Every state has some code section that deems dogs "personal properties", so simply telling you they are "property" doesn't say much and doesn't answer your actual questions at all - it simply sets out one of the basic ground rules that no one was likely arguing with anyway. What is more important to know is that, as to owning any personal property, the QUALITY of a person's conduct regarding the property makes a larger difference than the QUANTITY, such as the mere passage of time. One of the incidents of ownership is the right to allow others to use the property or, conversely, to exclude them from doing so. So owners of personal properties have to both exhibit, and defend a right to, the "possession, use, and control" , of the property they claim to own, regardless of how long.
As to determining (and eventually proving) who really "owns" any specific dog, it is true that the law looks to many normal property distribution rules about "gifts", "sales", "loans", and "bailments". Dogs, however, are weird - they are unusual personal properties in that common sale and loan markets, standard business regulations, official titles, formal government registrations, standard bills of sale, legal deeds, and similar type ownership papers, simply do not regularly exist about them.
As to most properties – personal or real – socially and legally approved documents indicate who owner is. Primarily, they possess a title (with a car), a deed (with a house), or a receipt (with a purchased good) which tends to show exchange of the object for consideration, an exchange memorialized via a formal officially-recognized document. In distinction, no such document goes along with ownership of a dog as far as the common law is concerned. The putative owner may have in hand a purchase invoice from Petco, a vet record from an animal hospital, an AKC registration paper, a blue ribbon from a dog show, a photograph of him delivering the puppy from the mother, or any number of papers that seem to indicate exclusive possession – but none are dispositive of ownership legally, they are all merely indicia of ownership.
Under the common law the most well reasoned test is that it is a person's “current actions and activities” with the dog, not any particular legal document alone about the animal, that determine true ownership. Caselaw recognizes that the person who takes on both the burdens and the benefits of the dog and hold themselves out to the world as to the "good and the bad" about doing so - that is accepts the privileges AND the obligations of having to care for an animal - are usually considered the true owner. This "current actions and activity" test tends to reduce the importance of a person's status or position, and increase the importance of their conduct. It is for this reason that, in most jurisdictions, omissions such as failures to obtain a license, or to have implanted a microchip, or to have saved a receipt, have only limited effect upon a court hashing out an ownership dispute. It is also the reason that ownership of animal offspring tends to follows ownership of the animal itself under the common law maxim “partus sequitur ventrem”; the rule that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the offspring of a domestic animal "belongs" to the owner of the parent, which is mostly a reflection of the actions and activities test trumping standard property conveyance rules.
All this means that the answers to your two questions are more complicated than simply "Yes, you can claim ownership over the animal since its been with you a month" or "No, they can't get it back". Who has been doing what with the dog, has a lien been asserted or not, why did you get the animal microchipped or vaccinated, and who had whose permission or awareness that it was okay to do any of those things, are all inquiries whose answers will make a significant difference to the actual answers to your questions. Being interviewed by a lawyer will help figure it all out.See question
I received annual dog license renewal statement in the amount of $16.51. Bill stated only that late fees will apply if paid 30 days past renewal date. Next bill I rec'd included a late renewal charge of $20.69, for a total of 37.20, more than doub...
Your timing is spot on: I just interviewed yesterday with CNN reporters on their research on an expose' news piece on exactly this problem: local animal control agencies in southern CA overcharging for license fees. Please call CNN reporter Melanie Hicken at (347) 802-5686 and tell her your exact circumstances and she may have some more detailed information for you about what is being done by others or the agencies on the issue.See question
I did NOT let the dog out, and there are several reports of coyotes in the area. Also, owls and hawks. The owners feel I was negligent.
Your question really involves the legal area of “bailment”, which occurs with the delivery of an object of a personal nature by one party to another to be held by the other according to the purpose of the delivery and to be returned when the purpose has been accomplished. Here, you are the bailee who is given physical custody and control of a dog while the bailor, the dog's owner, retains legal ownership.
A bailment is always created when one leaves an animal in another’s care, and in such circumstances you as the bailee becomes liable for any breach of the bailment arrangement if the animal is injured while in your care due to your negligence. Most courts recognize a presumption in favor of the bailor wherein animals which are returned damaged are presumed to have been damaged as a result of the negligence of the bailee. A lot will hinge on the terms discussed between you and the dog owner and the level of care or responsibility you provided as to care and maintenance of the animal. Just because you did not actively let the dog out does not mean that you are off the hook legally - a lot depends on what circumstances allowed the dog to get out and whether those were conditions that you were in control of or not.See question
I have an employee that is hitting our animals. We have 300 dairy cattle. I have not witnessed them hitting the animals, but I have 3 of their co-workers who have reported this to me. Can I just fire them or should I give them a final notice? With...
Since animal abuse is a crime in every state in the Union (and is a felony in most), then it would seem to be as good a cause as any to fire an employee on the basis that they are likely engaging in criminal conduct, usually a pretty big no-no in any workplace. While there may be other facts to this scenario which could change this approach, and while you could provide notice first if you wished to (and also simply or additionally report the activity as an actual suspected crime to a local law enforcement agency), termination outright appears to be justified.
I have extensive experience in every manner of animal law case imaginable, civil and criminal. I always promptly and thoroughly investigate each claim to assess fault and damages, and I possess a remarkable and comprehensive understanding of the various details of every state and federal law on animal related issues. Having handled tens of thousands of cases over 27 years as a trial lawyer, I am sensitive to the fact that those affected by animals are often burdened financially as well as physically and emotionally, and I will often provide free initial consultations to potential clients to determine what might best be done about a specific claim or case. Should you have experienced a serious legal issue due to the involvement of an animal, please give me a call at (503) 546-8052 or send me an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org to discuss your rights and possible solutions for your problems.