Dog Bite Law

Overview of "breed specific" laws

Simply put, a "breed specific" law, regulation, case, prosecution or anything else is one that is based on the breed of a particular dog, as opposed to the conduct of the specific dog. For example, a law that states, "All pit bulls shall be muzzled when upon public property" is breed specific.

In many countries throughout the world, attempts to bring down the number of dog bites have included measures taken to reduce the number of dogs considered to be dangerous. As discussed at length in Dangerous and Vicious Dogs, a dog can be considered dangerous because of its actions, its breed or its owner. Certain breeds of dog have been associated statistically, judicially and politically with an unacceptable level of risk of harm to human beings, but it also must be noted that the data, court decisions and legislative pronouncements are inconclusive and controversial. (See Dangerous and Vicious Dogs for details.)

In the USA, great negative attention has been directed to pit bull type dogs and Rottweilers. "Pit bull type dogs" is a term that is used to describe dogs that have been bred for fighting and killing other animals, and includes dogs of various sizes and appearances, but which have a number of common characteristics such as exaggerated jaw muscles, heavy necks and shoulders, and large physical mass. It should be noted that experts have disagreed as to whether these dogs have been primarily bred for killing, or whether such common characteristics actually exist.

Another type of dog has also received special, negative treatment, namely the wolf-dog hybrid (also called a wolf hybrid or wolfdog). This is a canid hybrid resulting from the mating of a wolf and a dog. It is widely believed that wolfdogs are highly dangerous as a breed. For example, the Humane Society of the United States says that "[c]rossbreeding wolves with domesticated dogs produces animals with the same wild instincts of the wolf. They are extremely unpredictable as pets, especially around children." (Wolf and Wolf-Dog Hybrid Incidents Demonstrate the Need for Exotic Pet Bans, July 21, 2006.) According to the National Wolfdog Alliance, 40 U.S. states effectively forbid the ownership, breeding and importation of wolfdogs, with most others imposing some form of regulation upon ownership. (For more about wolfdogs, see wolf-dog hybrid at Answers.com. For the laws pertaining to wolfdog, see National Wolfdog Alliance, Current State Regulations as they Pertain to Wolves and Wolfdogs.)

A list of breed specific jurisdictions within the United States can be found at Rott-N-Chatter. Other countries have their own lists of dangerous breeds. Here are several examples:

Germany. The dogs regarded as most dangerous in Germany are the American Pit Bull, English Bull terrier, and American Staffordshire Terrier; regarded as less dangerous are other Bull terriers, the Mastiff, Bull mastiff, and Rhodesian Ridgeback. In a study from 1992 to 1996 that involved 245 German cities, cross breeds caused the most bites (2376), followed by German shepherds (1956), Pit Bulls (320), Dobermans (223) and Bull terriers (169). K. Seksel, Report to the NSW Department of Local Government on Breed Specific Legislations Issues Relating To Control of Dangerous Dogs, 7-8 (2002).

Japan: In Japan, the Shiba, Akita and Toza are regarded as the most dangerous. There are no breed bans in Japan. Ibid.

Netherlands. In The Netherlands the pit bull has been banned since 1994. The so-called American Staffordshire Terrier was not banned. To make it possible for the police to tell the difference, the owner of an Am Staff is required to have a dog passport and specific type of pedigree with him at all times when out on the street with the dog. The dog also has to have a transponder implant, so the police can check whether the dog indeed goes with the passport and the pedigree. Because the pit bull is a non-pedigree breed, the only way to tell whether a dog without a pedigree is a pit bull is to have it examined by a specially trained expert. These dogs are called, in Dutch law, 'pitbullachtigen' - literally, pitbull-like dogs. If an expert finds that an non-pedigreed dog is a 'pitbull-like dog', the dog is put down. Possession of such a dog is a felony, although the courts rarely hand out felony punishments. The dog is always put down, but the owner usually gets no more than a fine of about eu. 350 - 750, even when the dog has killed another dog or maimed a child. Interestingly, the American Bulldog is classed as a pitbull-like dog, and is thus also illegal in The Netherlands. Also of interest is that fact that, upon the pit bull being banned, irresponsible people began importing the Presa Canario and Bordeaux. As has been said elsewhere on this site, breed bans fail for the simple reason that people who are motivated to interject danger into neighborhoods will find other breeds to accomplish such ends.

United Kingdom. Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has special requirements for four types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero. These dogs must be registered, muzzled in public and neutered. The penalty for violating the Act originally was seizure and destruction of the dog, but there was much public outrage. The effectiveness of the Act also was questioned; a study by the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Department of Accident and Emergency, concluded that the number of dog bites was unaffected. B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," cited in Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999. In 1997 the government amended the Act by removing the mandatory death sentence for any unregistered dog deemed to be a dangerous breed and gave courts discretion as to the penalty. For the text of the law, see Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom, The Control of Dogs. 

New Zealand. In New Zealand, the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero are classed as menacing dogs, meaning they have to be muzzled in public and neutered. Under the Dog Control Act, dogs that attack people or domestic animals may be seized or destroyed to stop an attack. Any verified attack can result in the dog owner receiving infringement notices that carry a maximum fine of $3000. For an attack causing serious injury to a person, an owner faces a maximum three-year prison term or a $20,000 fine. The dog is destroyed unless circumstances do not justify it.

The association of dog bites, canine inflicted human fatalities, and breeds has lead to the controversial practice of breed bans in some jurisdictions and industries. (See generally, Lockwood R. Humane concerns about dangerous dog laws. University of Dayton Law Review 1988;13:267-77.) For example, in some places it is illegal to import, breed, or sell pit bull terriers. Further, they must be registered, kept muzzled and on a lead when in public places, and, in order to ensure the type dies out, they must also be neutered. In some places, pit bull owners are required to carry canine liability insurance in some minimum amount, such as $50,000.00. Rott-n-Chatter.com has a current list of cities and countries with such laws.

In the United States, most breed bans have been upheld. 80 A.L.R.4th 70 (1991) [American Law Reports ALR4th, Volume 80 (1991) Current through the September, 1998, Supplement Annotation] "Validity and Construction of Statute, Ordinance, or Regulation Applying to Specific Dog Breeds, Such As 'Pit Bulls' or 'Pit Bull Terriers'," by Russell G. Donaldson, J. D. Court cases generally acknowledge that dogs are dangerous because they are used to create danger, not necessarily because they are inherently dangerous. When the dog is a pit bull, however, the rulings are inconsistent. (See below, Breed Specific Court Rulings.)

Another approach to dog bite prevention is a law containing regulations that are breed specific. In California, at least one city has laws regulating, but not banning, pit bulls. Section 4.04.410 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code states that pit bulls are not allowed on public property unless they are muzzled: 

4.04.410 Vicious dogs.
        (a) No person owning or harboring any pit bull or any other dog subject to this Section pursuant to subdivision (b) shall within the limits of the City allow or permit such dog, whether licensed or not, to be upon the public streets, public sidewalks, public parks, or any other public place within the City, or upon any private property which is not fully enclosed by fence or other barrier, except when muzzled and held under leash by an able bodied person. 
        (b) This Section shall apply to any dog for which the Animal Control Officer has issued, based upon the vicious or predatory nature of the dog, a written notice to the person owning or harboring such dog to keep the dog muzzled and leashed in accordance with this Section. 
        (c) For purposes of this Section, "pit bull" means any pit bull terrier of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dog or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its breeding the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier as to be identified as partially of the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier.

Another approach is to enact laws that regulate dogs that exceed a specific size or weight. This type of regulation is permitted by the federal government. 42 U.S.C. section 1437z–3 (Pet ownership in public housing) makes it legal to prohibit animals in public housing, on the basis of their size and weight.

One problem with laws directed at pit bulls has been the definition of "pit bull":

"What exactly is a pit bull? Defining it has proved to be a formidable legal hurdle because the pit bull is not a specific breed. Rather, it is a kind of dog, a generic catchall like hound or retriever. The breeds most commonly referred to as pit bulls are the American Staffordshire terrier, which is the term used by the American Kennel Club, and the American pit bull terrier, the term used by the United Kennel Club. The men who match pit bulls in fights today do not bother with such formalities; they refer to their animals as bulldogs -- a nickname which should not confuse pit bulls with the pug-faced and bowlegged English bulldog, a distant relative, or the bullterrier, another relation whose bloodline was softened long ago by crossbreeding with the English Terrier. Pit bulls come in almost any color; their ears may be cropped or uncropped; their noses either red or black; and their height and weight merely proportionate -- with the weight parameters ranging from under 20 pounds to upwards of 100. Their muzzles are wedgelike, their jaws powerful and their heads blocky. A pit bull's coat will be short and glossy, shimmering over a compact frame tightly bound in muscle." E.M. Swift, "The Pit Bull: Friend and Killer. Is the Pit Bull a Fine Animal, As Its Admirers Claim, Or Is It a Vicious Dog, Unfit For Society?" Sports Illustrated,  07-27-1987, pp 72.) 

The website page entitled "Find the Pitbull" presents photographs of 25 dogs, out of which 16 are pit bull type dogs or other fighting dogs. Although the intention of the author of that page is to convince readers that pit bulls are just like other dogs, in fact the comparison makes a different and more important point, namely that the aggressive breeds all resemble each other, and that there are a number of external physical traits that should warn a person that a dog of that breed has been bred to kill. However, this observation leads to another issue, namely just how many breeds should be targeted if we are to target any. Look again at the variety of breeds that are banned or restricted in Germany, Japan and The Netherlands, and recall the confusion in the media when it was learned that the dogs that killed Diane Whipple in San Francisco were Presa Canarios -- clearly among the most dangerous of all dogs in the world, but almost totally unknown in the USA. One writer has expressed the problem this way:

"The primary difficulty in determining which breeds are most dangerous has to do with the floating numerator (i.e., numerator floating without its denominator). It is important that we know not only the percentage of bites from a given breed but also the total number of that breed in the general canine population and the amount of time the dog spends around humans. Such denominator data are unavailable." (James R. Blackman, M.D., J Am Board Fam Pract 11(2):167-169, 1998.)

Banning certain breeds leaves open the possibility that a determined person can obtain an equally dangerous dog that is not on the list of those that have been banned. The experience of The Netherlands, described above, is instructive, in that the country is seeing an influx of Presa Canario and Bordeaux dogs, which are extremely dangerous animals. It is for this reason that legal authorities and experts in canine aggression generally appear to be opposed to breed bans. See., i.e., Safia Gray Hussain, "Attacking the Dog-bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous-dog Dilemma," 74 Fordham L. Rev. 2847 (April 2006), citing Mr. Phillips' comments in this website 24 times. The Lockwood article cited earlier suggests that, because the problem dog breeds change over the course of time, targeting a specific breed may be unproductive; a more effective approach may be to target chronically irresponsible dog owners. One of the foremost researchers in the area of canine aggression, Dr. Lockwood has stated:

"A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog. It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions -- the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation." (Malcolm Gladwell, "Troublemakers - What pit bulls can teach us about profiling," The New Yorker, Feb. 6, 2006.)

For these and other reasons, a number of American states have passed laws that forbid the banning of breeds. For example, the California Legislature has made it illegal for California cities and counties to pass laws based on breed. Section 31683 of the California Food and Agriculture Code provides:

31683.  Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as  a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.

Such laws may contain legal loopholes or be contradicted by others that permit a degree of breed-banning. For example, Section 31683, quoted above, exists side-by-side with Section 122330 of the California Health and Safety Code, which says: "Though no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or vicious, the growing pet overpopulation and lack of regulation of animal breeding practices necessitates a repeal of the ban on breed-specific solutions and a more immediate alternative to existing laws." (Sec. 122330, subd. (b) (2005).) Compounding the confusion, Section 122331 of the same code says: "Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances." The intent of these laws is to permit cities and counties within California to regulate breeds by requiring members of the breed to be spayed or neutered. Critics have argued that these contradictions will open the door to a wide range of problems for the owners of these breeds (see, for example, D. Capp, "SB 861 - Why Is It Bad?".) Problems also exist for law enforcement; for example, it is unclear whether Section 4.04.410 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, quoted above, can be legally enforced in light of Section 31683 of the Food and Agriculture Code and Section 122330 and 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, which prohibit breed specific laws.

To solve the dog bite epidemic, Attorney Kenneth Phillips and many other experts have therefore suggested that a wide-ranging approach is necessary, as outlined below and in Preventing Dog Bites.

Arguments for and against breed specific laws

Argument in favor of doing nothing at all

Some say, "do nothing at all." They feel that banning a breed is like human racial discrimination. They feel that dogs attack people who deserve it for one reason or another. They feel that the statistics compiled on dog attacks are inaccurate, and that the press has created the false impression that there is a dog bite problem in the USA. There is no such problem, they say. There are no organizations or experts who support this view.

Argument against breed specific laws - "educate, enforce, and study"

A large group of organizations and experts believes, "do nothing to the dogs, but educate dog owners, children and the elderly, enact strong criminal laws prohibiting dangerous behavior on the part of dog owners, and gather more information about the problem."

A respected group of canine professionals took this position in the authoritative paper entitled, A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention. They advocated dealing with the epidemic by instituting a combination of animal control ordinances and educational efforts, as well as more accurate reporting of dog attacks. They opposed breed bans on the ground that any dog could be a bad dog, that it is too difficult to identify breeds like pit bulls, and that people with bad intentions will turn harmless breeds into killer breeds to stay one step ahead of the law.

Other organizations that exist specifically to oppose breed bans and, in particular, pit bull bans, also promote stiff criminal laws against people who abuse dogs or habitually violate the animal control laws. See, for example, the "Three Strikes You're Out" proposal by Animal Farm Foundation, Inc., an organization devoted "to restore the image of the American Pit Bull Terrier, and to protect him from discrimination and cruelty" (the quote is from their home page).

The following points are often contended by those who oppose breed bans:

• Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few.
• Focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.
• These very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.
• Banning the so-called dangerous breed will merely hasten the upswing in popularity of some other breed that will be used for vicious attacks on people and other animals.
• There is no valid reason to deprive animal lovers of their well behaved pets.
• The reports and statistics are flawed. Among other things, a dog bite victim is usually unable to identify the breed of dog that bit him or her. Therefore, victims will name the type of dog that currently is on people's minds as being the dangerous dog.
• There are better and fairer ways to protect the public. See, for example, the five-point program advanced by Animal Farm Foundation.

One of the best survey-type articles about breed bans demonstrates the illogic of such a tactic. (See, Malcolm Gladwell, "Troublemakers - What pit bulls can teach us about profiling," The New Yorker, Feb. 6, 2006.) Mr. Gladwell states:

"The strongest connection [i.e., "characteristic" or "sign"] of all, though, is between the trait of dog viciousness and certain kinds of dog owners. In about a quarter of fatal dog-bite cases, the dog owners were previously involved in illegal fighting. The dogs that bite people are, in many cases, socially isolated because their owners are socially isolated, and they are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog. The junk-yard German shepherd -- which looks as if it would rip your throat out -- and the German shepherd guide dog are the same breed. But they are not the same dog, because they have owners with different intentions."

The list of organizations and a partial list of experts who oppose breed specific laws is provided at Expert Opinion on Breed Specific Legislation at the website of Animal Farm Foundation.

Argument in support of breed restrictions as opposed to bans - "teach, regulate and restrict"

The author of Dog Bite Law and other authorities say, "teach people dog safety, regulate by passing tougher civil and criminal laws, and restrict by keeping certain breeds away from the wrong people, places and situations."

This group agrees with the "community approach" but would go further, eliminating the "one bite rule," requiring insurance as a condition for ownership of certain types of dogs, toughening the dog control laws, criminalizing the failure to stop a dog attack in progress, and keeping dangerous dogs away from the wrong people, places and situations.

It is now abundantly clear that the bigger, more powerful breeds have no purpose or place in crowded urban settings. In states like California, however, it is illegal for cities to regulate dogs in any manner that is specific as to breed. In other words, no city is allowed to make Presa Canarios, Rottweilers or pit bulls "against the law." In fact, cities are not allowed to regulate those dogs in any way whatsoever, unless the regulation applies to all dogs. (See California's prohibition against laws based on breed.)

You might wonder why it is illegal to own a goat or a chicken in a crowded city, but perfectly fine to own a man-eating dog! It makes absolutely no sense. In fact, the laws that makes breed specific legislation illegal are not only illogical, but also hypocritical. The ban against breed specific legislation can hurt dog owners by making it seem legal to own any kind of dog they want, in any setting. Society seems to say to prospective dog owners, "go ahead and get any dog you want." However, if something happens because that dog was inappropriate, then society may put the dog owner in jail -- possibly for life. The prosecution of Knoller and Noel for the horrific mauling of Diane Whipple was a breed specific prosecution. Quite correctly, the prosecutors showed that the breed of dog that killed Whipple was dangerous and totally inappropriate for a crowded apartment building in a crowded city. However, is it fair to keep cities from regulating the kinds of breeds that people keep, and yet allow prosecutors to throw the book at people who keep giant, cattle herding dogs like Presa Canarios in their apartments? If breed specific prosecutions are legal -- and they certainly should be! -- then breed specific regulations also should be legal.

At some point, the laws against breed specific legislation should be repealed or at least revised, so that the bigger, more powerful dogs can, like goats and chickens and a host of entirely benign animals, be banned from or restricted in a reasonable manner. This does not necessarily mean that existing dogs need to be killed, or even that the dangerous breeds need to be entirely eradicated. The new laws should do any or all of the following things, short of criminalizing an entire breed: 

• Ban certain people from owning certain breeds (i.e., convicted drug dealers, convicted felons, convicted dog fighters, people convicted of violating the leash laws, people whose dogs have been adjudicated as being dangerous on a dog-by-dog basis, people whose dogs have bitten children)

• Require the muzzling of certain breeds when in public, when around children, and when there are guests in the home.

• Require at least $100,000 in insurance for certain breeds (i.e., Ohio requires insurance at this time for owners of pit bulls).

• Ban certain breeds from certain places (i.e., day care centers, crowded apartment buildings, dense urban areas, dog parks, parks and beaches). The federal government allows restrictions or prohibitions of animals in public housing, based on the size and type of building. See 24 Code of Federal Regulations section 960.707 (Pet Ownership).

• Require the leashing of certain breeds at all times except when in the owner's home.

• Increase civil damages if a dog of a certain breed injures a person (i.e., the victim will receive double or triple the usual amount of compensation if the dog is of a certain breed).

• Impose increased criminal penalties if the breaking of a law is accomplished with dogs of certain breeds

Argument in support of breed bans

There is a large group that says, "ban pit bulls and their closely related breeds."

This group of advocates is diverse and respected, and it even includes the president of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). They see the pit bull as overly dangerous and overly abused by mankind. The danger of pit bulls and Rottweilers is well established, in that they account for 75% of all reported canine-inflicted human deaths in the past two decades. It is undisputed that pit bulls in particular are the most abused dog in the USA; created for the specific purpose of violence, the dogs are treated cruelly to make them as dangerous as possible, and are routinely abandoned when they are not vicious enough for their evil masters.

There are two articles that present very well the argument in support of breed bans. The first is by an attorney who won the famous Denver breed ban case. The City of Denver passed a breed ban against pit bulls which the State of Colorado attempted to overturn. The State lost in court because the City produced the evidence that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dogs. The story of that case, and a review of that evidence, is contained in Nelson K. One City's Experience - Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified. Muni Lawyer, July/August 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4.

The second is an article that considered the problem from a humane standpoint. The following rationale for banning pit bulls appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 8, 2005. It was written by Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the author of "Making Kind Choices" (St. Martin's Griffin, 2005).

Breed specific court rulings

Until the 1980s, courts did not create or sanction different rules of law for different breeds of dog. Except for statutes that modified the common law's "one bite rule" (see The One Bite Rule), general principles of law were applied to all dogs more or less regardless of breed. These principles are contained in the Restatement of the Law of Torts, Second, and are summarized in other authoritative works, such as American Jurisprudence. It was stated in 4 Am. Jur. 2d Animals § 86, 90 (1962):

The owner or keeper of a domestic animal is bound to take notice of the general propensities of the class to which it belongs, and also of any particular propensities peculiar to the animal itself of which he has knowledge or is put on notice; and insofar as such propensities are of a nature likely to cause injury he must exercise reasonable care to guard against them and to prevent injuries which are reasonably to be anticipated from them. . . .

Even in the absence of any known viciousness in a domestic animal, its owner is obliged to exercise over it a certain degree of care depending upon the kind and character of the particular animal concerned, the circumstances in which it is placed, and the purposes for which it is employed or kept. The owner or keeper of a domestic animal is charged with knowledge of the natural propensities of animals of the particular class to which this animal belongs, and, if these propensities are of the kind that might cause injury he must exercise the care necessary to prevent such injuries as may be anticipated.

The 1980s saw a change in how the courts applied the foregoing general principles, as well as a number of rulings that were explicitly breed specific. No longer was a dog considered dangerous simply for behaving in a vicious or dangerous manner. New rules, both criminal and civil, were created for pit bulls because this breed became involved in a disproportionately high number of attacks upon people. (See Statistics.)

In a criminal prosecution, if the defendant is accused of assault or another crime in which a pit bull was used as a weapon, the courts always rule that the defendant had knowledge that the dog was vicious simply because of its breed, as opposed to its prior behavior. Pit bull dogs have even been considered weapons. See State v. Livingston, 420 N.W.2d 223, 230 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (for the purpose of first degree assault); People v. Garraway, 187 A.D.2d 761, 589 N.Y.S.2d 942 (1992) (upholding conviction of pit bull's owner of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree). In People v. Nealis (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, the dog was commanded to attack, so the court held that the dog was a deadly weapon. In People v. Henderson (1999) 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11862, pit bulls were used to threaten police, so the court held that the dogs were deadly weapons, not necessarily because of their breed, but because the defendant was using them as such.

In a civil lawsuit, if the defendant is a pit bull owner and the dog has bitten a person, some (but not all) courts hold that the fact that the dog was a pit bull can be used to prove knowledge of viciousness even if the dog never before acted ferocious to people or bit another person. For example, in Edgar v. Riley, 725 So.2d 982 (Ala.Civ.App. 1998), the owners of a pit bull were deemed to be aware of its dangerous propensity to attack without warning, even though it never had done so in the past, thereby supporting a jury's finding of civil liability for a dog bite. However, many courts refuse to allow a jury to use the breed of dog as a basis for finding that the dog's owner knew it was vicious if the dog had never behaved viciously in the past.

Court decisions have included a wide variety of negative findings and remarks about pit bulls:

• "The extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized." Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Limited Partnership Inc., 351 Md. 544, 719 A.2d 119 (Md. 10/07/1998)

• The pit bull is "a breed of dog that has achieved a remarkable notoriety for aggressiveness." Gentle v. Pine Valley Apartments, 631 So.2d 928, 932 (Ala. 1994).

• "Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals." Giaculli v. Bright, 584 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. App. 1991).

• "Pit bulls bit[e] to kill without signal." Starkey v. Township of Chester, 628 F. Supp. 196, 197 (E.D. Pa. 1986).

• "The Pit Bull's massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand pounds (2,000) of pressure per square inch - three times that of a German Shepard or Doberman Pinscher." State v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760, 764 (Fla. App. 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1989).

• "[P]it bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard . . . [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior . . . [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks . . . coupled with an unpredictable nature" and that "[o]f the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks . . . [in the period between July 1983 and April 1989], 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs". Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 650, 647, 772 P.2d 758, 768, 765, cert. denied 493 U.S. 976, 110 S.Ct. 500, 107 L.Ed.2d 503 (1989).

In Colorado, the city of Denver established a breed ban even though the state legislature opposed it. In a case involving Denver's ban against pit bulls, the city's ordinance was held to supercede a state statute banning all breed specific laws. See Nelson, Kory A., "One City's Experience: Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified," Municipal Lawyer, July/August 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4., pp. 12 et seq., discussing the case, City and County of Denver, et al., v. State of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct.).

In City of Toledo v. Tellings, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a Toledo city ordinance that restricts and regulates the ownership of pit bull dogs does not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners. (Download the entire opinion or read the court's detailed press release.) The majority of the court relied heavily upon a number of verified, negative facts about pit bulls that were proved in the trial court. The dissenting judge gave her approval to the ordinance but said that the overwhelming evidence should lead to law enforcement activity against dog owners who make their dogs more violent. The court's majority opinion stated there is "substantial evidence" that:

"[P]it bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."

Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training.

"Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned."

Pit bulls are not the only dogs that come with a legal "handicap." In the Diane Whipple case, the court permitted a great deal of evidence that the Presa Canario dog is inherently dangerousness, and allowed the prosecution to argue to the jury that the defendants had to have known of that evidence and therefore that their possession of dogs of that breed demonstrated evil intentions that warranted convictions of crimes all the way up to second degree murder. Attorney Kenneth Phillips, whose commentaries on the trial were carried by all the major American media, called the Whipple trial a "breed specific prosecution." (See The Diane Whipple Case.) The Whipple case illustrates the modern approach to the legal liability, both criminal and civil, of dog owners based entirely upon the breed of the involved dog.

Air shipment of dogs

American Airlines

Delta 

For current status, check the Delta website.

Pet Travel Information
Phone number: 888-736-3738

Email comments: Judy.goodman@delta.com 
Damaso.rodriguez@delta.com 
Fax number: 972-453-4250

Address: 
Delta Airlines Pet First Department
2409 N. Support Rd.
P.O. Box 610564
BSW Airport Texas 75261

Alaska / Horizon Air 

Read Shipping your Pets and Other Animals

Phone number: 800-225-2752 

Write to them using the Alaska Air Email comments form and the Horizon Air Email comments form.

Address:

Alaska Airlines                       Horizon Air
P.O. Box 68900                    19521 Pacific Hwy South 
Seattle, WA 98168                Seattle, WA 98188 

United Airlines

Also check with Services: Special Handling - Animals

Phone number: 800-822-2746 (800-UA-CARGO)

Write to them using their Email comments form. 

Fax number: 847-700-7883

Address:
United Airlines Cargo
Consumer Affairs - WHQWS
P.O. Box 66100
Chicago, IL 60666-0100

Continental Airlines

They do not mention Am. Staffs, etc, just "Pitbulls." They will not ship them older than 6 months of age and/or over 20
pounds.  When asked for reasons behind this, a supervisor stated: "From their own experience as well as reports of other [airlines] experience, the pitbull has a breed tendency to chew through plastic crates, which can cause injury to
the dog.  If they manage to escape from the crate, they can then injure people or cause damage to the aircraft".

The website reads: 

"Embargo of American Pit Bull Terriers (Pit Bulls, Pit Bull Terriers)

"Continental no longer accepts American Pit Bull Terriers and we will refuse any animal that is offensive or shows aggression. This embargo does not apply to American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, or Miniature Bull Terriers. Crossbreeds with American Pit Bull Terriers are also excluded from this embargo."

Phone number: 800-421-2456

Email comments: cocargo@coair.com 

Fax number: 281-553-5262

Address:
Continental Airlines Attn: Live Animal Desk
533 North Park Central Ste 100
Houston TX 77073

US Air - America West Airlines 

Check current status at the America West website.

Northwest Airlines

Insurance industry breed bans

• Banning sales of policies to owners of certain breeds. (To read more about excluding dog bites from coverage, see Insurance for the dog owner.)
• Excluding dog bites and other dog inflicted injuries from coverage (in other words, the dog owner is covered for other things, but not canine inflicted injuries).

Currently, owners of pit bulls and Rottweilers have the most trouble finding insurance. Most companies look suspiciously at those breeds. See generally, Humane Society of the United States, "Insurance Companies Unfairly Target Specific Dog Breeds," January 2005. Some companies have a comprehensive list. Here is the list from Automobile Club:

Pit Bulls & Rottweilers  (No full bred or mix)  Akita - including Japanese and Akita Inu  Bernese - including Mountain Dog, Berner Sennenhund and Bernese Cattle Dog  Canary Dogs - including Perro de Presa Canario  Chow Chow  Doberman  Husky - including American, Eskimo and Greenland (Siberian is OK)  Karelian Bear Dog  Rhodesian Ridgeback  Russo-European Laika - including Russian Laika and Karelian Bear Laika  Any breed of guard dog trained to attack  Wolf Hybrids  The foregoing applies to both purebred and mixed breed dogs. 

---

www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections and products, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser, Dog Bite Litigation Forms, What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed, Avoiding Liability When You Train, Shelter or Adopt-Out, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case, and the foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2008 Kenneth M. Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing. Please read the disclaimer and our rules for linking and quoting. Reporters seeking interviews are welcome to click here.