Tag Archives: court

Maryland: Four bills filed to overturn discriminatory liability case

Posted on May 15, 2012 by | Leave a comment

Update 5/21/12: The first special session is over, so these bills are dead. However, we are hopeful that they will be refiled if a second special session is called.

Four bills to reverse parts of the Solesky court decision have now been filed during the Maryland Assembly’s special session.

While all four bills have merits, our preference is for HB 1804 / SB 1307, which not only reverses the court decision, but also prohibits MD municipalities from passing BSL. Of course, a merging of the best parts of the four bills would also be extremely agreeable. Below, I have listed the four bills and explained their effects. They aren’t identical.

Although the session agenda-setters still maintain that the special session will only tackle budget issues, it doesn’t hurt to keep asking them for help. Ask the following officials to take up HB 1804 / SB 1307 during the special session:
Governor: http://www.governor.maryland.gov/mail/
Speaker of the House: michael.busch@house.state.md.us
Senate President: thomas.v.mike.miller@senate.state.md.us

And finally, keep writing your own legislators and the sponsors of the below bills. It’s important to keep Assembly members interested in this issue so that even if it is not dealt with during the special session, it will certainly be addressed in January when the regular session begins.

HB 1804 / SB 1307

This bill would reverse the Solesky court decision that placed strict liability on “pit bull” owners simply because of the breed of dog. It would also prohibit MD municipalities from passing or enforcing BSL.

HB Sponsored By: Delegates Smigiel and Mizeur
SB Sponsored By: Senators Pipkin, Getty, Kittleman, and Reilly
Email addresses: Michael.Smigiel@house.state.md.us; Heather.Mizeur@house.state.md.us; EJ.Pipkin@senate.state.md.us; Joseph.Getty@senate.state.md.us; Allan.Kittleman@senate.state.md.us; Edward.Reilly@senate.state.md.us
Entitled: Courts – Dangerous Dog Presumption – Specific Breed Prohibition
Synopsis: Establishing that, for the purpose of determining criminal or civil liability, a dog may not be presumed dangerous or potentially dangerous solely on the basis of the breed or heritage of the dog; providing that the Act does not preclude a political subdivision from adopting or enforcing a program to control dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs if the program does not discriminate among dogs solely on the basis of the breed or heritage of the dog; applying the Act prospectively; and making the Act an emergency measure.

HB 1806

This bill would completely erase the Solesky court decision. It would not affect muncipalities’ ability to pass or enforce BSL.

Sponsored By: Delegate Kramer, Benjamin.Kramer@house.state.md.us
Entitled: Courts – Dog Bite Lawsuits – Evidence and Standard of Proof
Synopsis: Establishing that in a cause of action involving damages resulting from a dog bite, the common law rules of evidence and standard of proof that existed on January 1, 2012, are retained without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog; stating the General Assembly’s intent to overturn the ruling in a specified court case; and applying the Act prospectively.

HB 1807

This bill would completely erase the Solesky court decision. It would not affect muncipalities’ ability to pass or enforce BSL.

Sponsored By: Delegate McMillan, Herb.McMillan@house.state.md.us
Entitled: The Maryland Dog Nondiscrimination Act
Synopsis: Establishing that in a cause of action involving damages resulting from a dog bite, the common law rules of evidence and standard of proof that existed on January 1, 2012, are retained without regard to the breed or heritage of the dog; stating the General Assembly’s intent to overturn the ruling in a specified court case; and applying the Act prospectively.

 HB 1808

The Solesky court decision ruled that landlords could be held liable for injury caused by tenants’ “pit bulls” even when the injury occurred off the landlord’s property. I believe this bill would undo that decision, by placing the liability only on the person who is responsible for controlling the dog (presumably, the dog’s owner). This bill does not appear to reverse any other part of the decision. That is, it appears to leave in place strict liability for “pit bull” owners.

Sponsored By: Delegates Cardin, Bromwell, Carr, Feldman, Frush, Guzzone, Haddaway-Riccio, Hogan, Kipke, Luedtke, A. Miller, Morhaim, Reznik, Stocksdale, and F. Turner
Email addresses: Jon.Cardin@house.state.md.us; Eric.Bromwell@house.state.md.us; Alfred.Carr@house.state.md.us; Brian.Feldman@house.state.md.us; Barbara.Frush@house.state.md.us; Guy.Guzzone@house.state.md.us; Jeannie.Haddaway@house.state.md.us; Patrick.Hogan@house.state.md.us; Nicholaus.Kipke@house.state.md.us; Eric.Luedtke@house.state.md.us; Aruna.Miller@house.state.md.us; Dan.Morhaim@house.state.md.us; Kirill.Reznik@house.state.md.us; Nancy.Stocksdale@house.state.md.us; Frank.Turner@house.state.md.us
Entitled: Courts – Civil Liability for Injuries Inflicted by Dogs
Synopsis: Establishing that no person may be held civilly liable for an injury inflicted by a dog of any breed or heritage unless the person had responsibility for exercising control over the dog and was negligent in exercising that control; and making the Act an emergency measure.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Maryland, Proposal to Repeal

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Maryland: Legislators push to overturn breed discrimination during special session

Posted on May 13, 2012 by | Leave a comment

Maryland delegates Smigiel and Mizeur have proposed a bill that would overturn the court decision that imposed strict liability on “pit bull” owners AND would ALSO prohibit Maryland municipalities from passing breed-specific laws! Read the draft bill here: http://delegatemike.com/?p=3060

The bill is currently nicknamed the Pit Bull Bill, although it obviously benefits more than just “pit bulls.” The proposed bill is a surprising one-two punch against BSL in the state.

The delegates want the bill to be introduced during this summer’s special session. This would be fairly unusual; most special sessions are very short, the focus is narrow, and there’s a limit on the types of bills considered. According to the governor, this special session was called to discuss the budget only. He does not intend to allow the so-called Pit Bull Bill to be filed or considered.

We are hopeful that the community can rally around the delegates and show their sustained support for the Pit Bull Bill throughout the remainder of the year, so that when the regular session begins in January, this bill will be filed, considered, and passed.

Thank Delegates Smigiel and Mizeur for proposing this bill, and ask them to file the bill during the regular session if they are unable to file it during the summer session: michael.smigiel@house.state.md.us; heather.mizeur@house.state.md.us

Tell your delegates that you support the Smigiel-Mizeur Pit Bull Bill: http://mdelect.net/

Finally, if you’re a legal-minded nerd like me, you’ll love this excellent analysis of the arguments and cases that were used to support the MD court’s discriminatory Tracey v. Solesky decision: http://toughlovepbr.blogspot.com/2012/05/our-breakdown-of-tracey-v-solesky.html?spref=fb

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Maryland, Proposal to Repeal

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Aurelia, IA: City will go to court over “pit bull” service dog

Posted on May 7, 2012 by | 2 Comments

Aurelia, IA, has decided to meet officer and service dog owner James Sak in court. The city has a ban on “pit bulls,” and Mr. Sak’s service dog, Snickers, looks like a “pit bull.” The city has refused to allow Mr. Sak’s service dog a permanent exemption to their breed ban.

We’re somewhat appalled that Aurelia is pursuing this matter. The Americans with Disabilities Act has been strengthened by a Department of Justice ruling that municipal breed bans / BSL cannot and should not apply to service dogs. It seems like a pretty clear-cut situation, and we’re not sure what Aurelia hopes to accomplish by pouring taxpayer money into a court battle with a disabled, cancer-suffering, retired police officer and his federally-protected, unoffending service dog.

All alerts for Aurelia: http://stopbsl.org/?s=aurelia

Animal Farm Foundation is assisting Officer Sak. Below is their press release. Many thanks to Kim for keeping us updated on this issue.

This week the attorneys from Davis Brown Law Firm, who are representing the Saks pro bono, learned that the Town of Aurelia refused to settle out of court and reach a permanent agreement on Snicker’s legal ability to stay with Jim in Aurelia. Therefore, the case will be going to trial. The trial date has been set for July 8, 2013 (note: that says 2013, not 2012).

In the meantime, the attorneys have entered into the discovery period where they will be gathering expert testimony and factual evidence supporting the Saks’ case. This will include information on service dogs, the ADA guidelines, dog behavior, Jim’s health, and so forth.

“Animal Farm Foundation is pleased to support them in these efforts to present the most current, fact-based and peer-reviewed scientific research and information,” said Kim Wolf, Community Engagement Specialist for Animal Farm Foundation.

Snickers has permission from the Federal judge (per the hearing in December 2011) to remain at home with Jim throughout this process.

Earlier this year, Jim was diagnosed with throat cancer. He has been undergoing treatment at Mercy Medical Center in Sioux City. He is expected to recover, and the survival rate for this type of cancer is 70% or higher.

“The worst part of my [cancer] treatment is not having my dog here,” said Jim Sak.

Jim will be returning home to Aurelia upon completion of his treatment.

“Jim has been so strong throughout all of this. We know of his strength comes from knowing Snickers is waiting for him at home, waiting to do his job as his service animal and his support,” said Wolf.

“We want everyone to realize that Aurelia’s decision to use taxpayer dollars to put Jim through the agony of a trial, especially while he’s battling cancer, does not reflect the sentiments of every resident of Aurelia. The outpouring of support and disbelief from Jim’s neighbors has been huge. We don’t want all the residents of Aurelia to be cast in a negative light just because of the illogical, unjust, and heartless decisions of a small minority,” said Wolf.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Iowa, Results of BSL

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Aurelia, IA loses court case, “pit bull” service dog returned

Posted on December 29, 2011 by | Comments Off

Many thanks to Kim for keeping us updated on this case!

Animal Farm Foundation is pleased to announce that the Honorable Judge Mark W. Bennett (http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/e-web/home.nsf/0/17a5762715fa4c52862573c90079072c?OpenDocument ) granted the motion for preliminary injunction for Snickers, a service dog, to be returned immediately to James Sak. Snickers will be returned to Officer Sak’s home in Aurelia later this afternoon.

Judge Bennett’s ruling carves an exception to the City of Aurelia’s ordinance banning “pit bull” dogs from city limits. Sak is a disabled Vietnam Veteran and retired Chicago Police Officer who depends on Snickers for his safety, mobility, and independence.

The hearing took more than two hours. Numerous people came out to support Officer Sak and Snickers, including a number of perfect strangers who drove hours to be there.

“Animal Farm Foundation is thrilled that Officer Sak will be reunited with his service dog, Snickers, and his safety will no longer be compromised. This case is a sad example of what happens when cities discriminate against dogs based on breed or appearance. Breed discriminatory legislation does nothing to enhance public safety, but it’s extremely expensive to enforce, it tears apart families, and it divides communities. Hopefully other cities will learn from this and choose alternative approaches to building safe and compassionate communities.” – Kim Wolf, Community Engagement Specialist, Animal Farm Foundation

“Today I got my peace of mind back. I hope that nobody else has to go through what we went through.” – James Sak

Animal Farm Foundation will continue to support Officer Sak with this case if the City if Aurelia appeals the decision in the United States Court of Appeals.

For additional info/interviews, please contact Kim Wolf at (845) 418-0778 or kwolf@animalfarmfoundation.org.

Recent guidance published by the federal Department of Justice regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act states that service dogs are essentially exempt from municipal breed-specific legislation. The judge in this case upheld the DoJ guidance in favor of Sak.

Note that the ADA exemption does not apply to pet dogs, therapy dogs, or any other dogs that are not employed as service dogs as defined by the ADA. However, the DoJ’s reasoning for the exemption is significant because the same reasons (dogs should be assessed as individuals, breed stereotypes are not reality, a dog’s actual behavior is more relevant than appearance, etc.) could also apply to pet dogs. Don’t count on the DoJ or any other federal entity to jump in and help pet dog owners fight BSL, though. Federal government doesn’t have the authority to create dog control laws. For pet dogs, your state and local laws will continue to apply.

Here are a few of the news articles about the outcome:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Judge-Allows-Pit-Bull-Disabled-Man-to-Reunite-136320353.html

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45807018/ns/today-good_news/t/despite-pit-bull-ban-man-be-reunited-service-dog/#.Tvx_etT2ZPJ

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-aurelia-iowa-couple-can-keep-pit-bull/article_60a6a734-5467-5a04-be78-7c5e49993d78.html

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/update-judge-aurelia-iowa-couple-can-keep-pit-bull/article_266b6e60-2d8f-11e1-9c2f-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e316dc1565c14603bc6b854db11a443a/IA–Dog-Ordinance-Lawsuit/

Comments Off

Posted in Court Cases, Iowa, Results of BSL

Tagged , , , , , ,

Midwest City, OK: Breed ban struck down

Posted on March 9, 2011 by | 1 Comment

Oklahoma state law prohibits municipalities from passing breed bans. However, Midwest City had a long-standing breed ban that included pit bulls, bull terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

A resident dog owner sued the city, and after several years of ongoing court battles (during which several lower courts ruled against the city), the state Supreme Court declined to hear the city’s appeal. Thus, the ruling against the city stands; Midwest City cannot legally ban breeds.

All alerts for Midwest City: http://stopbsl.com/?s=midwest+city

Supreme Court overturns pit bull ban

Jesse Wells, KFOR
6:29 p.m. CST, March 9, 2011

MIDWEST CITY, Okla. — A Midwest City family wins a long overdue court battle against the city. The family had been fighting for years to save their bull terrier pets. This week a state supreme court ruling ends the long legal battle.

Lower courts had previously ruled the dog ban violated state law.

This week the state supreme court refused to take up the issue, which means the Midwest City ban is now officially dead.[...]

After filing suit in 2007, Scott Adams always argued and lower court judges agreed, Oklahoma state law prohibits dog bans from being breed specific.

“It was a waste of money and time. I tried to tell everyone that from day one but the city wanted to pursue it. We defended it and won,” said the Stuckey’s attorney Scott Adams.[...]

With no more legal options, Midwest City could still lobby state lawmakers to overturn state law.

They could also draft a new, much less restrictive ordinance.

Full article retrieved 3/9/11 from http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pit-bull-outlaw-overturned-mwc-story,0,214449.story

→ 1 Comment

Posted in BSL Defeated, Court Cases, Oklahoma

Tagged , , , , , ,

Gold Coast, NSW, Australia: BSL sparks lawsuit

Posted on November 10, 2010 by | 1 Comment

In April 2010, the owners of an American Staffordshire Terrier named Tango were told that their dog was a banned “pit bull.” Tango had not behaved badly–he was just guilty of looking like a “bad dog.”

Tango’s owners spent $500,000 in their effort to prove that their dog was an American Staffordshire Terrier, not an American Pit Bull Terrier. The court ultimately accepted that their dog was an American Staffordshire Terrier, then ruled that AmStaffs were “pit bulls,” and therefore the dog was banned. Tango was at risk for being killed by the city, so he was relocated.

In September 2010, the local goverment issued a clarification that AmStaffs were not banned “pit bulls.” This meant that Tango and other AmStaffs were allowed to be registered in Gold Coast again. Tango’s owners intend to sue Gold Coast in order to recoup their expenses.

All alerts for Gold Coast: http://stopbsl.com/?s=gold+coast

Dogfight continues despite freedom

Jessica Johnston | November 10th, 2010

[...]Tango’s owners John Mokomoko and Kylie Chivers plan to sue the Gold Coast City Council to recover the $500,000 they have spent proving their dog’s breed.[...]

”We’ve spent over $40,000 in kennel fees alone and we didn’t break the law.”[...]

She said they would be attempting to recover costs from Council for the botched banishment.

”They owe us… for six years AmStaffs were allowed to live here, he was registered, desexed, microchipped.

”They really singled us out.”[...]

Full article retrieved 11/10/10 from http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/11/10/269731_gold-coast-news.html

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Breed Identification, Outside of U.S., Results of BSL

Tagged , , , , , ,

Sioux City, IA: Council to discuss removing pit bull ban, making them “high risk,” June 28

Posted on June 24, 2010 by | Comments Off

The city council will discuss this issue on Monday, June 28, 2010, 4:00 p.m., local time, in the City Council Chambers, 5th Floor, City Hall, 405 6th Street, Sioux City, Iowa. The agenda may be viewed here: http://www.sioux-city.org/custom/agendasminutes/view.asp?ID=553&type=2

Previous alerts for Sioux City: http://stopbsl.com/?s=%22sioux+city%2C+ia%22

Read the staff report and the language of the proposed ordinances here: http://stopbsl.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/siouxcityproposedbsl6-28-10.pdf

You may send letters by e-mail to the full Council-ccouncil@sioux-city.org or mail to City Hall, P.O. Box 447, Sioux City, IA 51102, or call 712-279-6102.

Sioux City May Lift Pit Bull Ban & Designate Them “High Risk”

Posted: Jun 24, 2010 4:50 PM CDT
Updated: Jun 24, 2010 4:52 PM CDT

After review, city staff member are advising the city leaders to make place pit bulls in a high risk category and remove the pit bull ban. Their suggestions also would increase the regulations related to keeping high risk animals.

Read the rest of the story here:

http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12705700

Comments Off

Posted in BSL Proposed, Iowa

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,