Animal Legal Questions

The most that you would be required to pay is the reasonable charges for treatment for any injury that your dog caused to the dog. [You would not be forced to pay the owners for worry or concern etc.] There are a lot of facts subsumed in that statement so if you feel you must get more advice you should consult with an attorney about your particular facts.  Make sure to get the help that you might need to protect yourself from harassment should anything come up or the neighbors' behavior should continue.  Good luck! Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys. http://www.BestAttorney.comhttp://www.ProductDefectNews.com 800-956-0123... Read Answer

Determining whether this would be an allowable use under the zoning rules for the area where you are thinking about operating this business will be a big issue in deciding whether you can do this business. You need to consult the zoning ordinances for the City or County where you live.  There may be City/County ordinances about animals, and you'll need to review those in determining how many animals you can keep at any one time, and under what conditions.  You may need to obtain a business license from the City or County. If you truly expect to make a success of this business, you owe it to yourself to get the help of an attorney who is experienced in helping people start up businesses - this will help you in many different ways you might not have thought of. Good luck - I hope it happens for you. Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123  ... Read Answer

Review all of these facts with an attorney who has experience with dog or animal control issues. There are alternatives to putting the dogs down, especially if this incident was minor. The problem is that you may be found to have violated the conditions under which you were allowed to keep the dogs, and it may be that you will be determined to be untrustworthy about protecting the public from your dogs (that is what the dangerous and vicious dogs process is all about). You need to make sure that animal service division understands that you will do better in the future. You may also be able to put the dogs in a location away from people if that is possible.  Good luck with this challenge! Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123 ... Read Answer

The process that might be invoked by the animal control office of your city or county is the process of having your dog declared a "dangerous dog" or a "vicious dog". You will find the law on that process in the California Food & Agricultural Code starting with section 31601.   A review of the facts of your situation - either by yourself or with an attorney - will help you determine what risks you may face with your dog, this time, and might face if the dog hurts a person or another animal again.  It looks to me that your dog (from this incident) could not be deemed to be "vicious", but depending on what other occurrences there have been, might be "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous". As long as the dog is potentially dangerous there is little risk that the dog will be put down or that you will have to get rid of the dog. However, if other conduct leads one to the conclusion that the dog is in fact dangerous or vicious, those severe steps might be dangerous. If animal control contacts you, be careful what you say. Get help from an attorney in formulating your response and your participation in the process. Even if you are not contacted, think about how you are enclosing your yard to keep your dog in your yard, and what steps you are taking to make sure you are keeping your dog restrained if needed. Good luck with resolving these issues! Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123 ... Read Answer

Sure you can be sued - all it takes is a filing fee to sue someone. The question is whether you face a risk for being held liable for a claim for compensation by the man who fell. In California, the "strict liability" for injury caused by a dog applies only when the dog has bitten someone. You will need to determine - alone or with an attorney - whether strict liability applies to this case. If strict liability does not apply, then the plaintiff must be able to establish that you knew your dog had a dangerous propensity, and that you failed to protect other people from that dangerous propensity, and that the plaintiff was injured because of that dangerous propensity. I don't know how a court would rule about a dog's barking: my guess is that it would not be a dangerous propensity.  It seems to me that a claim for personal injury as a result of a startle response because of a dog bark is a long shot. Not impossible, just tough to find that a dog owner must protect people from a bark.    Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123 ... Read Answer

Wow - what a big appearing problem for what seems to be a minor issue. There is a reason that the District Attorney's office is (what sounds to me as) coming down so hard on you. This sounds like more than a dog running loose. This sounds more like the kind of action that we would expect had the dog been declared to be a dangerous dog and you had not complied with the conditions you agreed to when you were allowed to keep that dog. It sounds like you will face problems in your living arrangements if you were to accept the offered terms of probation. It sounds to me that you need to consult with a criminal defense attorney to discuss all the facts which gave rise to the warrant, and to discuss the probation terms and what you can do about them. Good luck with making these tough decisions. Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123.    ... Read Answer

If you are asking about your potential ability to collect compensation from the security person or his employer, that answer depends on whether or not you spent any money to care for your dog. Dogs cannot recover pain and suffering, and their owners cannot obtain recovery for a dog's pain and suffering.  Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123.    ... Read Answer

Based on what you've written, I think the chance of you being found liable for the neighbor's dog's medical bills is slight. I don't read anything which would lead me to consider that you and your husband have been negligent in the management of your dogs, and you must be negligent before you can be found liable. It is good to step back and apply some common sense to this matter: when another dog invades your dog's space, why is it unreasonable to believe that your dog will protect her space? Why are you at fault because your dog follows her nature, bred into her after thousands of years? My evaluation might change if your dog had gotten out, went next door, and attacked the neighbor's dog, or if you had let your known aggressive dog get loose in the neighborhood where it attacked a neighbor's dog. If you have homeowner's insurance you should consider providing them the information about the potential claim and allow them to do their work to adjust or deny the claim. I suggest that you follow their suggestions.  Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123.    ... Read Answer

There is probably a term in your rental agreement with your tenants which will serve as the basis for you to demand that they remove the horses within a set period of time or else quit the premises. Does the zoning for your residential area allow horses? If you have a month to month lease then you can just give notice to the tenants that you are terminating the lease.  You need to speak to a "landlord tenant" attorney to evaluate your options, given the nature of your tenancy agreement with your tenants.  Good luck! Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.California-Lawyer-Attorney.com  800-956-0123.    ... Read Answer

What a difficult time for your family! To put this question into perspective, ask yourself whether you would feel responsible to another dog owner if your dog bit that person's dog under the situation you described. In most states, including California, you would have to establish that the dog owner or keeper knew about that particular dog's dangerous propensity to harm other dogs, and was negligent in his efforts to control the dog or to warn people about the dog. In California there is no strict liability for the owner of a dog which bites another dog. Just because the dog is a Rotweiller does not mean that the owner knows that the dog will attack other dogs. Appeal to the dog owner's sense of responsibility in asking him to share in the expense of the vet care your dog needed. If that doesn't work and you still want to try to recover money, you should seriously consider Small Claims Court, which in California just increased its maximum jurisdiction limits for a case like this one to $10,000 (two cases a year in excess of $2500 recovery with a maximum of $10,000). You will still need to establish how the dog owner was negligent but it will certainly be quicker and less costly that a superior court lawsuit. Keep in mind that the most you are going to get is the amount of the medical bills and other "economic" costs to treat your dog's injuries: you and your family cannot recover for shock, dismay, or suffering because of your dog's injuries. You asked about the potential of liability of the resort. That will be a very difficult case for you to prevail on. If you are serious about the possibility you should meet with an attorney to discuss the facts and the expensive process you would be undertaking. Good luck - I hope your dog and your family recovers quickly and completely. Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123.    ... Read Answer

You can recover the fair market value of your dog if you can prove that the landlord knew or should have known of some propensity of one or more of his dogs toward violent conduct against other dogs or animals. It has to be more than the dogs being big. Most convincing of the propensities is one that goes beyond general "breed" behavior, and focuses on the past behavior of the specific dog or dogs involved.  Try talking to the landlord and making a claim against his homeowners' insurance. However, if that gets you nowhere and you still want to obtain damages for your loss, you'll have to sue him. In California, your best avenue might be a claim in Small Claims Court. Starting January 1, 2012, the claim ceiling for non-business claims goes up to $10,000 (up to two cases in a year). There are no attorney advocates allowed in Small Claims cases. However, you need to have evidence of what you claim were the dangerous propensities and evidence that the dogs' owner knew of those propensities just the same as if you were in Superior Court (did he brag about how snarly the dogs are, or have "beware of dogs" signs posted on his property?). The California Judicial Counsel provides online help for small claims cases, and most Superior Courts also have online information available. Good luck in obtaining compensation! Brian Chase,  BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys.  http://www.BestAttorney.com http://www.ProductDefectNews.com  800-956-0123... Read Answer

That must have been a very scary accident! You didn't ask a question so I am not sure what information you might be looking for. An interpretation of the "hit and run" statutes in California - the duty to stop, identify yourself, and to report the accident to authorities (found in California Vehicle Code sections 20000 and following) - would impose a duty on you to notify the dog's owner of your involvement in the collision that killed the dog. You should meet with an attorney to discuss these events to help you decide if you had a duty to report and to get advice about what (if anything) you should do to notify the owner of the dog. You would be responsible to compensate the owner of the dog for the value of the dog if you were negligent or worse in causing the accident. Whether you are "at fault" for the accident depends on many factual and legal issues. You should review the facts of the accident with an attorney to understand whether you would be liable for compensating the owner.  Brian Chase, BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys. http://www.BestAttorney.comhttp://www.California-Lawyer-Attorney 800-956-0123  ... Read Answer

In California, under most circumstances the owner of a dog is strictly liable for the injuries caused by that dog's biting a person. If a person you are trying to sue is not an owner of the dog, then you would have to prove that the person had knowledge of that dog's "propensity" to injure or attack a person, plus some right or duty to control the dog's behavior. In your case, you can see that the proof needed to establish liability of the dog owner is much less than the burden of proof in a claim against your friend you were visiting then the other friend's dog bit you. So most likely, yes you should be able to establish the responsibility of the dog owner. The case against anyone else will be difficult: possible but not likely. I hope you recover quickly from your injuries.Brian Chase, BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys. http://www.BestAttorney.comhttp://www.ProductDefectNews.com http://www.bestattorney.com/dog_bite.html 800-956-0123.      ... Read Answer

Sorry to hear about your dog's injury. The short answer is "Maybe", if you can prove that the cat caused the injury to your dog, your neighbor might be held responsible for the cost of treating your dog's eye. One of the responsibilities that we take on for bringing animals into our human neighborhoods is that we then become responsible to protect our neighbors from the consequences of those animals acting out their natural propensities. With really wild animals, and with more domesticated animals under special circumstances this liability is often "strict" - that is, you don't need to prove that the owner was negligent in his management of his animal. With more domesticated animals, including cats, you would need to show that the owner realized that his animal had a dangerous propensity to injure other animals or people and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the neighborhood from that propensity. Talk calmly to your neighbor about sharing the cost of the vet bill. This is a situation in which you should consider the long term emotional effects of trying to force your neighbor to pay. Neighborhood litigation is a messy and harmful process. If you feel you have no other recourse for resolving this matter,to your satisfaction, look at the Small Claims Court in your county.  We wish you the best of luck in charting this course Brian Chase, BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys. http://www.BestAttorney.comhttp://www.ProductDefectNews.com 800-956-0123  ... Read Answer

Are you responsible for the injuries to another dog that your dog might cause? In almost all situations, yes. If your dog injures another dog, was the aggressor and was not responding in a natural way to that dog's provocation, you will be responsible for the reasonable vet bills incurred for the reasonable treatment for the injuries caused by your dog.  That doesn't mean that you must pay any and all amounts that a vet might charge, nor does it make you responsible for verifying what physical reasons there might be for the claimed problems that the dog is having now. The possibility that some other physical condition is causing this problem has increased because of the length of time since the biting incident. The dog owner should be paying for the care needed for conditions not caused by the bite. Making yourself responsible for taking the dog to the vet will create the impression that you are agreeing to pay any and all charges that might be incurred for the treatment - you may not be responsible for them all. I suggest that you promote the dog owner's taking the dog to the vet himself, and then providing you a copy of the vet's report on his examination, diagnosis and treatment along with a copy of the bill before you agree to pay anything.    If you have homeowner's insurance, or another non-auto policy of insurance which insures you against claims like this, you should make your insurance company aware of the claim and have the insurance company adjust the claim for you. That service is part of what you pay your premium for. Good luck! Brian Chase, BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys. http://www.BestAttorney.comhttp://www.ProductDefectNews.com 800-956-0123.... Read Answer

Consumer attorneys who work for people who have been the victims of the conduct of others are in business, and need to use their time and other resources to make money just as any other business. Those of us who represent consumers realize that most of the time, consumers cannot afford to pay for legal services on an hourly basis. The best balance we have found between the expense of legal representation and guaranteeing ourselves some compensation for our work on behalf of our clients is the financial arrangement called a contingent fee. Usually, the term "contingent fee" actually involves two elements: first, we get paid a fee only if our client's case is successful, and second, we receive a percentage of the compensation that our client recovers. At our firm, we look at the contingent fee as a way that we work with and for our clients, rather than for ourselves. The better the outcome for our clients, the better the outcome for us.  As a result of working on a contingent fee, we evaluate a claim for which we are asked to represent a consumer for the amount of money we anticipate the consumer will receive in compensation, the chances of success, and how much time and costs it will take to be successful in pursuing the claim. If we think that a case is likely to generate a reasonable fee for the amount of time we expect it will take, we will offer to represent that consumer in that claim.  I expect that you will have difficulty in finding an attorney who would take your case on a contingent fee basis. Even if the claim might be easy to prove (I am not able to give you a worthwhile evaluation of your chances of success), the problem for you are the other two elements: the value of your claim is small, and it might take a lot of work to recover the money for you. The size of your anticipated compensation is relatively small., You might be able to recover the cost of the surgery. You might be able to receive the cost of any care for your dog's burns. You will not be able to recover pain and suffering for your dog, and you will not be able to recover your own worry, distress, upset, and time.  You should seriously consider the less expensive and perhaps more personally satisfying process of Small Claims Court. In California, if you have a claim of $7500 or less (if you are an individual and have had no more than two claims of that amount in a year, soon to increase to $10,000 for non-auto accident cases), you can represent yourself in having a judge decide your claim. There are no attorneys involved in representing claimants or defendants in small claims cases. The courts and the California Judicial Council maintain web sites which will guide you in pursuing a small claims case. We hope your dog recovers well from her injuries.  Brian Chase,   BISNAR|CHASE, Personal Injury Attorneys. http://www.BestAttorney.comhttp://www.ProductDefectNews.com 800-956-0123.  ... Read Answer

I know of no California statewide law or regulation which limits the number of pit bulls a household can own or keep on their property. In this last sentence I refer to situations in which none of the dogs have been determined by the local animal control authority as being "potentially dangerous" or "vicious". Your county or city might have an animal control ordinance (normally, in California, this would be a county's responsibility). The County of Santa Cruz, for example, has ordinances which makes a dog owner responsible for a dog's habitual barking and another for a dog's threatening behavior. 6.12.090 Noisy animals. A. It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog, cat or other animal, whether licensed or not, which by habitual howling, yelping, barking or other noise unreasonably disturbs or annoys any person with ordinary sensitivities. When determining if there has been a violation of this section, the use and character of the property where the animal is located as well as the neighboring properties shall be taken into consideration. 6.12.100 Harassment, threat or injury by animals. It is unlawful for the owner of any animal to suffer or permit the same to annoy and harass, chase, threaten to inflict or inflict injury of any kind on any person. (Ord. 4490 § 6, 1998: prior code § 8.05.410: Ord. 2170, 8/19/75) In looking at these statutes, it is important to notice particular phrases, such as "unreasonably disturbs or annoys" and "person with ordinary sensitivities". It is up to the animal control officers to determine whether the dog and/or owner violate any such ordinance. Usually, ordinances of this type authorize the animal control officer to impound the dog(s) and, if sufficiently violent and not able to be rehabilitated, then to put the dog(s) to sleep. If your county has such an ordinance, you might choose to file a report about your neighbor's dogs. In their investigation, the animal control officers could observe the behavior you are talking about and can issue orders to control the animals to protect your parents from the behavior found to be annoying, harassing, or potentially dangerous. If one or more of the dogs actually gets into your yard and injures you or one of your cats, you can pursue other steps, including a Small Claims or other civil lawsuit, to recover compensation for the damage caused by that conduct. Your parents might be able to sue their neighbors for an order forcing them to abate (end or minimize) the dogs' behavior and for compensation, under the theory that the conduct of the neighbor's dogs is a "private nuisance" which interferes with your parents' use of their land. Nuisance is defined in California Civil Code section 3479. They can file an action in the Small Claims Court to obtain these remedies. Another issue is what seems to be your mention of damage to the fence between your property. If the fence is a common fence, on the property line, each of you owns it and each of you has the right to recover the costs of repair for damage caused to the fence by anyone. If the fence is solely on your neighbor's side of the property line (not shared) then you would not be able to force him to pay you the cost of repairing the fence. ¿  ... Read Answer

Generally, we are able to use our land in any manner we deem fit, as long as we do not cause disturbance, insult, or injury to our neighbors or our communities. Zoning is an example of what is usually an allowed limitation on and regulation of our use of land by society. Likewise, when we live in communities, or even somewhere near another, we are exposed to the consequences of our neighbor's use of his/her own land, and we have to live - within reason - with the consequences of that use no matter how obnoxious it may seem to us. When that use, however, crosses into the harmful or injurious or unreasonable, then the land owner might be sued to stop his use of the land in that manner, or even to pay compensation for the harm caused by that use. An example of harmful use might be the smell that emanates from a dump or a chemical plant, the noise of an airport, The County of Santa Cruz has an ordinance which provides that: It is unlawful for any person to keep or harbor any dog, cat or other animal, whether licensed or not, which by habitual howling, yelping, barking or other noise unreasonably disturbs or annoys any person with ordinary sensitivities. When determining if there has been a violation of this section, the use and character of the property where the animal is located as well as the neighboring properties shall be taken into consideration The County of San Mateo has an ordinance that provides that: No owner or possessor of any animal shall cause or permit it to do any of the following: [¶] (c) To suffer or permit such animal to habitually bark or meow or act in such a manner as to continuously disturb the peace of any citizen or to be a public nuisance. So you should see that your neighbor might have a point: an animal control officer might determine that the behavior of your dogs is so disturbing of the peace of your neighbor that you might be asked to control the behavior and, if you are unable or unwilling to control that behavior, that you remove the dogs from the neighborhood. The ordinance in your county might authorize the authority to impound your dogs and, if they are uncontrollable, to put them to sleep. You say that an animal control officer has been to your house to review your provision of food, water, and shelter for the dogs, but he might not have determined whether your dogs' behavior is "habitual' or is "continuously disturbing the peace" of your neighbors. So you need to accept the possibility that you may be called to answer for the behavior of your dogs, and you may need to constrain them or else lose them. You mention some threat of or actual harassment in response to your dogs. If this behavior occurs, you need to report it to the police. Depending on the behavior, you might be able to ask a court to issue a "civil harassment restraining order" by which the court would order the neighbor to stop the harassing conduct. All I can do is suggest that you be careful in how you proceed in this emotionally charged environment. The best approach may be the most direct, such as meeting with your neighbor to come to a compromise about your dogs and his response to the dogs. Maybe you can keep your dogs inside the house or away from the street in the evening when the stimuli of your dogs' barking are most numerous and disturbing. Most likely your neighbor is resorting to phone messages because constructive communication has broken down between you, and threats because he feels you have not acknowledged his messages: he can agree to be more direct and cooperative and less emotional when some disturbance occurs. You can work this out. ... Read Answer

I am sorry to hear about your loss under such trying conditions. It is difficult to suffer the loss of family pets, and then to discover that it appears that a neighbor might have killed them. There are two systems in California which hold people accountable for their conduct. The first is the criminal system, in which the People of the State ask for punishment of a person for conduct which is so harmful to society that we have made such conduct a "crime". It is up to the police agency in the area (apparently the Sheriff and his staff where you are) to decide what conduct they find to be violative of criminal statutes (in California, found in the Penal Code) and then to refer those cases to the District Attorney for a decision about whether criminal charges will be filed with the court for prosecution. The other system is the civil court system, which allows individuals who are injured because of the conduct of another to receive compensation for that injury. The injured person brings a claim against the person who is alleged to be responsible under a theory of liability, the breach of a "civil wrong". In your situation, that theory of liability might be best described as a "trespass" - causing the injury or destruction or interference with the use of some property of yours. I just used a term that you might not like, for as important as your cats have been to you and your family, they were property, just like a car or a radio or some other thing you own. The "measure of damages" for your loss - the calculation which will be performed to determine what compensation you might receive in this action - is the reasonable value of the cats. A hard reality for people who have suffered the loss of a family pet because of the action of another is that you do not have the ability to recover compensation for the emotional suffering you and your family have endured because of the loss, and you do not get to argue that your cat was a very special cat and, therefore, was worth more than any other cat. There is a special court in California for small cases, called the "Small Claims Court". There are simple procedures involved to start a case, lower costs involved, and easier to present. A party must represent himself. The general jurisdiction limit (dollar amount of the claim) is $2,500.00, except that a person can bring two claims a year for up to $7,500 for certain kinds of cases. You can find out about the Small Claims Court in San Mateo County by visiting the San Mateo County Superior Court web site, and look for the "Small Claims" information under the "Self Help" tab on the court's home page. You can find the court's Claim form which you can fill out online, print, and then take to the courthouse near you. When you go to court, bring evidence of what the cats were worth - a measure that the court might accept would be how much it might cost you to obtain cats of the same breed. Good luck with whatever you choose for obtaining compensation for your loss. ... Read Answer