10 



LAWS ABOUT DOGS 



Oregon, Pa., Rhode Island, South Car., 

 South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, 

 Vermont, Washington, W. Va., Wisconsin, 

 Wyoming, require health certificates for 

 dogs shipped into these states. But in the 

 gr.eat majority of cases the requirement 

 is disregarded. The requirement has ita 

 source in a Sta:te Veterinarian's decree 

 rather than statute, which requirement 

 may be forgotten by the next State Vet- 

 erinarian. 



This certificate should be made out in 

 triplicate by the veterinarian at the point 

 of shipment. One copy is presented to the 

 express or other conveying agency to 

 accompany the dog. A second is sent to 

 the Chief Veterinarian of the state of 

 delivery. 



The health certificate must state that 

 the dog has not been exposed to rabies or 

 other infectious or contagious diseases 

 within a certain period of time, usually 



sixty days and that at the time of ship- 

 ment is free from them. A dog might 

 not be in sound health and yet receive a 

 shipping certificate. 



Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Miss., Okla., 

 Texas and Washington require not only a 

 health certificate but a statement that 

 the dog has been immunized against 

 rabies. In the absence of immunization, 

 Florida requires a 30-day quarantine in 

 the home of the consignee. 



North Carolina requires immunization 

 against rabies before shipment or within 

 seven days after arrival in state. 



Hawaii has a four-months quarantine 

 on all dogs coming into that island. 



The other states have no restrictions 

 whatever regarding examination unless 

 on account of rabies ; then an examination 

 may be required for dogs entering or 

 leaving a quarantined area, during the 

 period of the quarantine. 



F — Protection of Rights of Dog Owners 



The rights of dog owners are fairly well 

 established by law. At all times, the 

 owner of a dog, where his rights are 

 certain, should fight to the extreme in 

 defending his rights and in protecting his 

 dog. 



Too often the officers of the law are 

 disposed to go beyond their powers. The 

 mere complaint that a dog is vicious or 

 has bitten someone or has done damages 

 does not in itself give the officer the right 

 to invade one's property and take pos- 

 session of the dog. 



There is an increasing desirability that 

 dog owners resent trampling upon their 

 rights. It is highly necessary that they 

 make a firm resolve to fight for these 

 rights in behalf of man's best friend. At 

 times to do so may require time, effort 

 and expense but when one dog owner con- 

 firms his rights in open court, he does 

 an immense benefit to all other dog 

 owners. 



1. All the Rights of Personal Property 



We already have spoken of the dog as 

 personal property and that in most in- 

 stances he is covered by all the safeguards 

 which have been placed around private 

 property. 



2. The Dog on the Highways 



The right of the dog upon the streets 

 and public highways is a right which 



should be protected. Merely because a 

 dog happens to be wandering on the high- 

 way, does not justify the killing of the 

 dog by the motorist. The motorist must 

 exercise every possible care to avoid hit- 

 ting the dog. 



A number of states now require that 

 when a dog is injured or killed, a report 

 of the accident must be made just as in 

 the case of humans. The state of New 

 York, for instance, imposes a fine of not 

 more than $50 or 30 days in jail for the 

 hit-and-run killing of a dog. Massa- 

 chusetts and Connecticut have similar 

 laws. 



The New York law reads that "any per- 

 son operating a motor vehicle or motof 

 cycle, knowing that damage has been 

 caused to anything, whether it be an 

 animal or property must stop and exhibit 

 his license and give the facts contained 

 thereon to the person sustaining the 

 damage, or to a police officer or in lieu 

 thereof report it to the nearest police 

 station under penalty of being guilty of 

 a misdemeanor." 



3. Compensation for Injury by Auto 



Where a dog is injured by a motorist, 

 usually the insurance which the motorist 

 carries against public liability and prop- 

 erty damage will cover damage done to 

 dogs also. 



G — Liability of Dog Owner for Acts of His Dog 



The general principle of jurisprudence 

 affecting liability for dog bites or other 

 actions of the dog is stated well and 

 briefly in Sec. 155, Mass. Dog Laws: 



"If any dog shall do any damage to 

 either the body or property of any per- 

 son, the owner or keeper, or if the 

 owner or keeper be a minor the parent 

 or guardian of such minor, shall be liable 

 for such damage, unless such damage 

 shall have been occasioned to the body 

 or property of a person who, at the time 

 such damage was sustained, was commit- 

 ting a trespass or other tort, or was 

 teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog." 

 1. The "First-bite" Privilege 



The legal doctrine of "scienter" perhaps 

 is the best known section of laws about 



dogs. Popularly it is known as the "first 

 bite" or the "one-bite" doctrine. It arose 

 out of the common law and is based upon 

 the general principle of law that a man 

 cannot be held responsible for acts not 

 of his own knowledge known or presumed. 

 If a person has been bitten by another 

 person's dog, he needs to prove that the 

 owner of the dog knew of the dog's dis- 

 position to bite. The owner may know of 

 this disposition even tho the dog never 

 has bitten any person. But if the dog 

 already has bitten a person, the owner is 

 presumed to know that the dog has a dis- 

 position to bite. In other words, it is 

 not necessary to prove that the owner 

 knew of this disposition if it can be 

 proved that the dog had already bitten a 



