©2009- 2023 Allan R Keyes, Esq., all rights reserved
The finder of a lost dog, by caring for it and sheltering it for over a year, became its rightful owner. Morgan v. Kroupa, 167 Vt. 99 [filed September 5, 1997], noting that courts simply cannot evaluate the “best interests” of an animal.
Town, under dog control ordinance, validly transferred possessory interest in a lost dog to adoptive owners, even though the true owner was known. Lamar v. North Country Animal League, 170 Vt. 115 [filed November 12, 1999], noting that although plaintiffs' action for repossession of the dog and for damages based upon alleged constitutional violations lacks merit, this is not to say that a future case seeking recovery for the emotional distress or other damages resulting from the negligent handling of an impounded animal would be unsuccessful.
Pets are not subject to the law of conversion-- but a horse is. Hegarty v. Addison County Humane Society, 2004 VT 33 [filed April 2, 2004], noting that, in the context of a conversion claim, the property interest in pets is of such a highly qualified nature that it may be limited by overriding public interests.
No damages may be awarded for lost companionship or emotional distress resulting from the wrongful death of a cat. Goodby v. Vetpharm, 2009 VT 52. [filed May 8, 2009] noting that there may be a more appropriate measure of damages for the tangible loss of pets due to the negligence of others based on the particular pet’s value to its owner, beyond simply its value to a stranger in the market.
Cat precedent applies to dogs. Court refuses noneconomic damages for the malicious destruction of pet dog. Scheele v. Dustin, 2010 VT 45 [filed May 21, 2010] noting that pets occupy a legal realm somewhere between chattel and children.
Family Division has no authority to award visitation or joint custody. Welfare of the animal must be considered in final disposition. Hament v. Baker, 2014 VT 39 [filed April 25, 2014] noting that, in contrast to a child, a pet is not subject to a custody award following a determination of its best interests; but that, in awarding the dog to one of the parties the family division may consider the welfare of the animal and the emotional connection between the animal and each spouse.
Liability for dog bite is based on negligence. Martin v. Christman, 2014 VT 55 [filed 13-Jun-2014], reaffirmiing the Court's longstanding rejection of strict liability in dog bite cases, and noting that, with the exception of ultra-hazardous activities such as blasting and keeping dangerous animals, there is no liability without a breach of a duty of care based on the defendant’s conduct.
Landowner had no duty to passing motorist to prevent escape of horse not in his control. Deveneau v. Wielt, 2016 VT 21 [filed March 4, 2016].
Search warrant for dogs was not overbroad in part because the law may provide protection to dogs in their own right “as living, sentient beings.” State v. Sheperd, 2017 VT 39 [filed June 2, 2017].
Although tenant was entitled to an emotional assistance animal, reasonable accommodations did not extend to the specific animal found to be a threat to others. Gill Terrace Retirement Apartments, Inc. v. Johnson, 2017 VT 88 [filed October 6,2017].
Neither landlord nor guest of tenant/dog-owner owed a duty to passerby injured when pit bull escaped because they had no "reason to know" that the dog in question posed an unreasonable risk. Gross v. Turner, 2018 VT 80 [filed August 10, 2018], noting that landlords are not obligated to conduct background checks on tenants’ pets and that a dog’s breed alone is not sufficient to put its owners or others on notice that it poses an unreasonable risk of harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment