LAWS ABOUT DOGS 



11 



person. A disposition to bite would be 

 evidenced by a savage nature such as the 

 habit of rushing at people and attempting 

 to bite them. 



The doctrine of the first-bite has been 

 voided by statute in California and New 

 Jersey. 



It does not apply of course to instances 

 of dogs worrying sheep and cattle. 



There is one outstanding exception to 

 the first-bite privilege of the dog, namely, 

 that if the dog is trespassing when he 

 takes the bite, the owner is liable. 

 2. Liability for Bites 



When a dog bites a helper in the ken- 

 nel, the state law on workmen's compensa- 

 tion applies just as in the case of any 

 employee. 



Altho not any case has been tried, in 

 our opinion, the doctrine of first-bite 

 would not apply where a dog is placed 

 with other dogs in a boarding kennel, 

 for instance, and the dog bites one or 

 more of the boarders. Clearly in this 

 case the owner of the kennel is obligated 

 to take every reasonable precaution and 

 it should be presumed that part of the 

 precaution is to know definitely whether 

 or not his own dog or some other dog put 

 in upon his order is vicious and might 

 bite other dogs to their injury. 



A person who rushes in to separate two 

 fighting dogs whether his own or not, 

 does so at his own peril. 



3. Liability to Trespassers 



We already have mentioned that when 

 a dog itself is trespassing, there is not 

 the defense of scienter or first-bite. We 

 now consider the liability of the dog 

 owner when the dog bites a trespasser 

 upon the owner's property. 



Few phrases of law have become as 

 much a part of ordinary speech as the 

 two Latin words "cave canem," words 

 which are found inscribed upon building 

 stones unearthed today in ancient Roman 

 cities. 



The general theory is that no one has 

 the right to come uninvited upon another's 

 property. If he does, it is at his own 

 peril. However, it is construed that a 

 person coming peaceably and on business, 

 or perhaps on a friendly visiting call, 

 does not forfeit the ordinary right of pro- 

 tection against damage. Milkmen, mail- 

 men, newspaper delivery bojrs and even 

 solicitors and salesmen coming peaceably 

 are presumed to be entitled to come with- 

 out injury to themselves. 



Where one comes on to another's prop- 

 erty, against the express will of the 

 owner, or if some one intoxicated comes 

 upon the premises, if anyone comes as 

 a trespasser, or if any one who has come 

 properly on the premises, teases, abuses 

 or incites the dog, or if any one enters 

 to commit any unlawful act — the owner 

 of the dog is relieved of any damages 

 done by the dog's bite or other actions. 



The mere posting of a sign "cave 

 canem" ("beware of the dog") does not 

 protect the owner against damages tiie 

 dog may do to persons who plainly or 

 presumably have a right to enter the 

 premises. It is sufficient against beggars 

 and persons who do not come peaceably. 



However, the sign, to protect the owner 

 against all damages, should read, "A 

 vicious dog is at large on premises. All 

 persons enter at their own peril.'* A 



sign stating, "Salesmen, solicitors, beggars 

 and peddlers prohibited from entering 

 these premises" would release the owner 

 of the dog from any liability for damages 

 arising out of bites by his own dog. 

 4. Destmction of Property 



In general, the owner is liable for the 

 acts of his dog off his premises (21 HL 

 App. 205). 



Always the owner of a dog mast exercise 

 ordinary care that his dog does not do 

 damage or injury to persons or property. 

 This ordinary care is necessary notwith- 

 standing the theory of the first-bite 

 privilege. The absence of a fence to re- 

 strain the dog does not lessen liability. 



5. Liability for Injury to Live Stock 



Thru the years there has been a constant 

 battle between dog owners on the one 

 hand and live stock owners, particularly 

 sheep owners, on the other. 



The primal urge of the dog to attack 

 animals particularly if their coat be furry 

 or fleecy, still exists. 



A tendency to kill is dormant or devel- 

 oped in some dogs far more than in 

 others. The evil name of sheepkiller has 

 been brot upon the entire dog family by 

 perhaps less than 1 per cent of all 

 dogs. Some of these are occasional 

 killers, urged perhaps by special circum- 

 stances or by temporary temptation. Such 

 dogs can be trained so that they are en- 

 tirely safe with live stock either in or 

 away from the presence of their owners. 



But as with humans, there are a few 

 dogs criminally inclined, hopeless beyond 

 redemption. These dogs may kill for the 

 sheer lust of killing. No one, not even 

 the most loyal dog lover, can defend such 

 dogs. Their instant death is to be desired. 



On the other hand, the dog has been 

 blamed often and unjustly for killing 

 sheep. The farmer walks into his field of 

 a morning, finds a number of sheep killed, 

 and instantly raises the cry "dogs, dogs." 



As provided by law, a committee of ap- 

 praisal is appointed; usually these are 

 neighboring farmers, friends of the com- 

 plaining farmer, and who, thinking to do 

 him a good turn and perhaps having in 

 mind that on a future day their own 

 sheep may be killed, readily fall in with 

 every suggestion, blame the dog and assess 

 generous damages. These in turn are paid 

 out of the funds obtained from the pay- 

 ment of dog license fees. 



In general, practically every state by 

 law provides that any one whether the 

 owner of the land or not, can kill a dog 

 caught in the act of chasing, killing or 

 wounding sheep or other live stock on land 

 not owned by the owner of the dog. 



The wording of the Illinois statute con- 

 cerning the right to kill a dog when doing 

 damage to live stock is as follows: "Any 

 person seeing any dog in the act of pur- 

 suing, chasing, worrying, wounding or 

 killing sheep, goats, cattle, horses, mules, 

 poultry or swine unaccompanied by or 

 not under the supervision of the owner 

 or keeper of such may pursue and kill 

 such dog." 



In some cases such as Ohio, the "sun- 

 set law" is in effect, namely, that dogs 

 found at large on other premises between 

 sunset and sunrise may be killed. 



Also dogs in some states when found at 



