8 



LAWS ABOUT DOGS 



2. On Private Property as Trespassers 



The mere presence of a dog: on prop- 

 erty other than his owner's does not give 

 the risrht to destroy or injure the dosr. 

 However, there is the right to impound 

 a dogr by the owner of the property. The 

 owner of the dog must pay for the damage 

 done and for the keep of the dog while 

 being impounded. (Exception — Kentucky, 

 which permits killing for mere trespassing 

 — a horrible law.) 



But where the dog is a trespasser on 

 property, he can be forced off the prop- 

 erty. 



He can be put to death if he is in the 

 act of worrying or killing livestock (note 

 that he need be only worrying) ; he can 

 be put to death if he is doing damage or 

 clearly threatening to do damage or harm 

 to a member of the family or to merely 

 a guest or stranger. 



The right to kill dogs under such con- 

 ditions is based upon the right of self 

 defense, which covers not only one's body 

 and property but also his family. 



The placing of poison, the setting out 

 of traps to catch dogs and the placing of 

 what is known as dog spears, to do dam- 

 age to trespassing dogs, are prohibited by 

 statute in some states and likely would be 

 prohibited in any state if the matter came 

 before the court. 



An important case is Hubbard, 90 Mich- 

 igan 221, which justified a person an- 

 noyed at night by wandering dogs on his 

 property, to shoot the offending animals 

 without liability. Further, this court held 

 that "cases of this kind are for reference 

 to a jury, which should listen to all of 

 the testimony and render its judgment." 



In the N. Y. case Brill 23 Wend. 354, 

 the court held that where the owner of 

 the dog, tho warned a number of times, 

 still permitted his dog to run on the 

 property of another to the annoyance and 

 disturbance of the property owner, the 

 latter incurred no liability in killing the 

 dog. 



(See page 4, Killing of Dog While in 

 Pursuit of Game.) 



3. Court Order and Trial 



Unless a dog is in the actual act of 

 attacking persons or livestock _ or doing 

 damage to them, or the dog is off his 

 owner's premises and roaming about in 

 public places contrary to a specific law, 

 a police officer has no justification in 

 killing a dog without a specific order or 

 warrant. 



At times dogs are brot into court and 

 an actual case conducted. Of course, the 

 dog is not an actual party to the trial 

 but is there merely for purposes of ob- 

 servation and examination. The dog itself 

 legally cannot be tried for any wrong- 

 doing it has committed. 



4. Liability of Police Officers 



There is a twilight zone between the 

 liability and nonliability of a police of- 

 ficer for killing a dog. 



First, an officer cannot come upon an 

 owner's premises and remove a dog un- 

 less he has a court order or warrant. 



Where an officer goes out of his way 

 to seize a dog or arrest a dog owner, 

 without due process of law, and with 

 malice on his own part, an action for 

 damages will lie against the officer per- 

 sonally. 



A public official who kills a dog sup- 

 posed to be diseased but not actually so, 

 is liable (29 N. E. 854). However, he is 

 not liable for injuries inflicted necessarily 

 while he was exercising due care (170 S. 

 W. 231). 



No law is valid which authorizes the 

 killing of a dog unless the killing is 

 justifiable to safeguard the public against 

 injury or loss of property (144 Ind. 2798). 



However, a public official performing 

 government functions (as differentiated 

 from purely ministerial functions such as 

 maintenance of roads, for example) can 

 not by his wrongful act, hold his em- 

 ployer, the city or otherwise, liable for 

 damages (74 N. W. 111. 20 S. E. 653, and 

 130 111. 238). The public official person- 

 ally may be liable in these cases but not 

 the governing body. 



An officer can not shoot a dog without 

 its owner's consent, if it is injured and 

 is not or has not done any harm. 



An officer can not enter private property 

 to shoot or capture a dog merely because 

 the dog is not muzzled or not vaccinated. 



Unless the officer of the law has seen 

 the dog in the act complained of, or unless 

 a court order is produced, a dog on the 

 owner's premises cannot be taken without 

 the owner's consent. 



However, a dog may be killed on public 

 property if its owner violates a law 

 intended to protect citizens against an 

 impending danger ; a law enforced to kill 

 unmuzzled dogs on city streets to safe- 

 guard the public aganist rabies, is valid 

 (27 Ind. 494). 



A dog can not be killed if found un- 

 muzzled just because an ordinance re- 

 quires dogs to be muzzled (97 N. W. 1074). 

 His owner may be fined. 



5. Protection of Dog by Owner 



One dog can not legally kill another. 

 If he does, the owner of the killed dog has 

 a right of action against his owner. 



A Michigan case (about 1880) concluded 

 that because the killed dog was not 

 licensed, does not lessen the other owner's 

 liability. 



Whether the legal status as property is 

 clear or not clear in any state, the owner 

 of a dog has the right to protect his dog 

 from injury by another dog or by a per- 

 son. And this right justifies the use of 

 necessary physical force. We quote from a 

 Texas Supreme Court decision : 



"Homicide may be justified in protec- 

 tion of the possession of a dog by his 

 master. The craven who would wantonly 

 injure him is subject to a fine ; the thief 

 who would steal him may be declared a 

 felon and rendered infamous in the eyes 

 of the law and his f ellowmen ; and human 

 life may be taken justifiably in defense 

 of his possession." 



E^Restraint, Quarantine, Examination, Inoculation 



1. Public Health and Safety Supreme 



Theoretically at least, laws are enacted 

 for the greatest benefit to the greatest 



majority. In other words, the public wel- 

 fare comes first and is the basis of inter- 

 pretation of all laws. Consequently, many 



