In cases where dogs are involved, ownership is determined under state law and local law. These differ from one jurisdiction to another. In some cases, there are laws and regulations that contain fairly specific criteria for determining the owner of a particular animal. Generally, they provide that the “owner” includes the rightful owner, the fair owner and any person, association, partnership or corporation that houses an animal or has custody or control of an animal. Such a definition is useful in that it equates possession of a dog with “accommodation” or “custody or control” of the animal. These actions are somewhat specific and can therefore be proven by testimonies and tangible evidence such as receipts for dog food, notes on veterinary records, a signature on the euthanasia permit and, of course, the dog license itself. However, the definition is circular because it states that the owner is the “rightful owner” or “fair owner.” A law that defines “owner” as “host” may prevent some victims of dog bites from receiving compensation because their temporary custody of the dog has made them their “owner” under that law and is therefore unable to make a claim. For example, Tschida v. Berdusco, 462 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. Ct. App.
1990) noted that the law`s definition of “owner” as “any person who houses or keeps a dog” protects a dog owner from the claim of a veterinary assistant, on the basis that the law excludes the “legal owner” from liability to a “second owner” (terms used by the Minnesota court). The same reasoning was adopted in Kentucky. Jordan v. Lusby, 81 P.W.3d 523 (Kent. Ct. App., 2002). However, Tschida and Jordan tackled high-risk cases where dog professionals made dog bite claims for injuries they had sustained while working on the defendants` dogs. It can be argued that such cases should be limited to their facts, which do not apply to the most common cases of dog bites.
In a civil case of dog bite, possession of a dog that has bitten a person may result in strict liability, negligence in itself for violation of a law, or common law liability based on scientists. In a criminal dog bite case, possession may be the basis for prosecution. The relationship between a person and a dog includes not only ownership, but also housing and custody – the “owner” of a dog can be distinguished from its “host”, which in turn can be distinguished from its “owner”. The category that best suits the plaintiff and defendant may determine not only legal liability, but also a defense against legal liability under certain dog bite laws. In court, it is important to have valid proof of ownership in states where responsibility for a dog bite is tied to the dog`s ownership. Many dog bite laws are actually bite laws because they cover bites and no other hurtful behavior of a dog (like scratching or knocking over). If the only reason for liability is that the defendant was the owner, or if the property is an essential part of the case, the victim must be willing to prove it. One of the best ways to discharge this burden is to obtain admission in an appropriate form (for example, using dog bite prosecution forms written by attorney Kenneth Phillips). For an example of a case lost due to insufficient proof of ownership, see Atkins v. Conley, 504 P.E.2d 920 (W.Va. 07/02/1998) (“The statement on conversations with the veterinarian in this case was introduced to prove ownership of the dog, the decisive issue in the case.
We consider the admission of such evidence to be inappropriate; Therefore, annulment and pre-trial detention are necessary, especially since ownership was the key issue in the trial. Section 258.095(5) of the Revised Kentucky Statutes defines a “dog owner” as “any person who has a right of ownership of the dog and any person who keeps or houses the dog or has it in its custody or permits it to remain on or above the premises owned by it.” On this basis, the Kentucky Court of Appeals concluded: The evidence shows that the dunah defendant bought Eric; the dog`s driving licence indicates it as the owner and indicates its place of residence and not its business address; and that ownership of the dog was never transferred to Elite. The trial judge may have had doubts that the $100 paid for the dog was an item charged or payable to the accused DuNah`s annual cheque for entertainment and other small expenses, given the amount and nature of the expenses and the fact that his brothers each received an amount similar to that of the recording. but did not participate in the purchase of the dog. The self-care and attention that accused DuNah consistently gave to the dog is not unimportant to the determination he possessed and kept Eric. Applying the above principles, the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the conclusion that he was the owner of the dog, and this conclusion is sufficient to confirm the judgment. (Ellsworth v. Elite Dry Cleaners, etc., Inc., ibid., p. 483.) HISTORY: Article 46-150.85 of the 1962 Code; 1957 (50) 595. A person who removes a license plate from a vehicle or affixes to a vehicle a license plate that is not legally approved for use on the vehicle, in both cases with the intent to conceal or distort the identity of the vehicle or its owner, is guilty of an offence.
As used in this section, “remove” includes degradation, coverage, and destruction. A variety of acts or incidents of ownership were committed by a brotherhood which, in the case of Oertel v. Brotherhood Chi Psi, 239 Ga. App. 147, 521 P.E.2d 71 (1999); The photo of the dog appeared in the photo of the local enclosure among the members of the Brotherhood entitled “Mascot”, he lived in the House of the Brotherhood, the Brotherhood paid for his “blows and things”, and the Brotherhood sent a representative to pay his fines to several, perhaps five, other occasions when it was determined that the dog was at large. In practice, defendants rarely succeed in proving that they do not own a dog that lives in their home. In the Diane Whipple case, for example, one of the defenses was that the defendants were not the owners of the killer dogs, but simply their temporary guardians. That defense failed and the jury handed down convictions on all counts, including second-degree murder.
In the Legion of Cases Brought by Lawyer Kenneth M. Phillips, the defense of non-ownership has only been tried several times, but he has never managed to end a trial. California court decisions, for example, state that “one of the most significant incidents of ownership of property is the right to transfer it.” (Bias vs. Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co. (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14, 16.) “A common feature of a property right is that it can be sold and transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v. Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317.) One or more persons may be an “owner” and therefore be held liable for the injuries of a third party, even if none of these “owners” owns all cases of normal ownership. (Springmeyer v.
Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1571-1572, citing Stoddart v. Peirce (1959) 53 Cal.2d 105, 115.) Ownership is a question of fact that must be determined by a jury in accordance with the appropriate legal instructions. (Kaley v. Yachts (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d 1187.) See also Coakley v. Ajuria, 209 Cal. 745, 290 p. 33. The Minnesota Supreme Court therefore defined the term “accommodation” as the granting of accommodation, shelter or shelter to a dog for a more limited period of time or for more than one limited purpose, even without the owner`s permission.
(Verrett v. Silver (1976) 309 minn. 275. In Pippin v. Fink, 794 A.2d 893 (2002), a New Jersey court of appeals ruled that the living companion of a person who purchased and registered a dog could be held liable for the dog`s actions under the state`s Dog Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. 4:19-16, because both people considered the dog to be their own and claimed to be co-owners of the dog. In Illinois, it has been determined that when a person takes responsibility for controlling a dog, they become the owner as defined by the Illinois Dog Bites Act. (Wilcoxen v. Paige (1988) 174 Fig.
App. 3rd 541.) Other states also have court decisions that help determine who the law considers the owner of an animal.