Here is one for you municipal types that have the thankless, but important, task of dealing with dogs and their owners that don’t behave. The matter can take on an extreme degree of seriousness: we are all familiar with the recent incidents of children and others being mauled and killed by dogs.<\/p>\n
There are a variety of statutory means for dealing with dogs that bite or attack. These are usually in the form of a municipal bylaw<\/a> or a Dangerous Dog Act<\/a>. The legislation usually gives flexible remedies including conditions on keeping the dog to putting the dog down.<\/p>\n Historically, dog prosecutions (and for that matter other animal related prosecutions) were subject to a principle known as “scienter”. Basically, you had to prove that the person in control of the animal was aware that the animal had a propensity to behave in a way that would lead to the most recent incident. This is also known as, “every dog gets a free bite”, although if you receive a dog bite, is better to contact an injury attorney atlanta ga<\/a>, to know exactly what you can do in these injury cases.<\/p>\n As an aside, in another life, I did a fair bit of research on this matter. Halsbury’s has a fascinating review on laws relating to dogs and other animals. A lot of the old dog bite cases (1500’s to 1800’s) have to do with dogs having a go at a flock of sheep. You can imagine that when the world was powered by mutton and kept warm by wool that a flock of sheep was big stuff.<\/p>\n In any event, the “free bite” concept can make prosecuting these cases very dificult. The BC Community Charter<\/a> takes a slightly different approach in section 49(1):<\/p>\n “dangerous dog” means a dog that<\/p>\n (a) has killed or seriously injured a person,<\/p>\n (b) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal, while in a public place or while on private property, other than property owned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog, or<\/p>\n (c) an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely to kill or seriously injure a person. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Statute takes away the “free bite” defence and the subjective considerations on the “dangerous” finding. If the dog seriously injures a person the dog is dangerous and you’re off to remedy considerations. Dangerous dogs are considered in the recent case, Community Charter v. Whittle<\/em><\/a>, 2005 BCPC 0610. Note that the Court held that a serious injury was one that was more than trifling in nature.<\/p>\n Further Note:<\/strong><\/p>\n Bumped into these two interesting Dangerous Dog sites:<\/p>\n Dangerous Dogs: A Biting Look at Man’s Best Friend<\/a><\/p>\n