Dog Bite Law

Because a dog can inflict severe injury and death, a potentially dangerous or vicious dog can be ordered destroyed or its owner ordered to keep it under very strict conditions.

• Overview
• The meaning of "dangerous" and "vicious"
• The problem with statistics
• Serial and rampage attacks
• A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people
• Other ways that dogs can be considered dangerous 
• Canine homicides
• Attacks that resulted in serious injuries but not death
• Regulation of dangerous dogs
• Criminal penalties for owners of dangerous dogs
• Dealing with a dangerous dog as a public nuisance
• Differences between animal control orders and judicial orders

Also see Statistics, Legal Rights of a Person Who Is Injured While Defending Another Person or a Pet from Attack, Breed Specific Laws, Regulations and Bans, and Preventing Dog Bites.

Overview

It has been accepted that dog bites have become too frequent and too violent to be ignored. The statistics support the view, first articulated by Attorney Kenneth Phillips in 1999, that there exists a "dog bite epidemic" in the United States. There are differences of opinion, however, as to which dogs are too dangerous, with some members of the public even refusing to accept that there is any such thing as a "dangerous dog." Upon close look, the debate often is about how to talk about and deal with dangerous dogs and their owners, and will remain inconclusive until basic agreement can be reached about the nature, quality and scope of information about dog attacks.

The most recent nationwide survey of dog bites is over 10 years old. It established that there were approximately 4.7 million dog bites in the USA per year. Since that time, the number of bites clearly appears to have grown faster than the number of dogs. (Unless otherwise noted, see Statistics for details about all of the figures quoted in this section.)

Over 30 dog attacks per year result in the death of an American. These incidents are referred to as "canine homicides," meaning deaths of humans that were inflicted by dogs. Although homicides are extremely rare, they are significant primarily because they are investigated closely, and a good amount of detail often is reported, enabling experts to form opinions about a variety of issues pertaining to dog bites. In the 1980s and 1990s there were about 17 fatalities in the USA per year, but 2006 and 2007 saw more than 30 per year.

It is important to draw attention to the studies because of lobbying efforts by a segment of the population that stubbornly continues to insist that no breed of dog is inherently dangerous, even in the face of apparently overwhelming contrary evidence. A report by Animal People found that, of 264 canine homicides from 1982 to 2006 in the USA and Canada, a total of 65% of the deaths were caused by pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes. (Merritt Clifton, Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, US and Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006, click here to download.) An older study published in the Journal of Pediatrics reported 109 fatalities from 1989 to 1994 in the US, with 37% inflicted by pit bulls and Rottweilers. (Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.) These studies establish that pit bulls and Rottweilers clearly are dangerous if judged by the damage that they inflict when they attack people. (Footnote 1.) It should be noted, however, that an apparently exhaustive study of canine homicides arrived at entirely different conclusions, and made a strong case that "addressing the issue of severe and fatal dog attacks as a breed specific problem is akin to treating the symptom and not the disease." Karen Delise, Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics, 2002, self published, available by clicking here.

Because of the perception that certain breeds are inherently dangerous, many Americans are of the opinion that these breeds need to be eliminated. That also has been the view of many segments of industry and other nations. The insurance industry and airline industry have attempted to exclude certain breeds because of their potential for harm, and a number of European nations have banned these dogs. (See Breed Specific Laws.) The courts have confirmed that certain breeds are inherently dangerous, although the legal result of having a dangerous dog is inconsistent from case to case and state to state. Many state legislatures have issued declarations that establish there is an epidemic but have not put the responsibility on any one breed. (Footnote 2.) There are many who even have begun to fear that dogs generally may someday be judged unfit to be our companions.

A close look at the dispute over dangerous dogs, however, leads to the conclusion that the disagreement often is about how we talk about them, what makes them dangerous, and how we should curtail the danger. Many believe that we should not talk about a dog as being dangerous, but rather the owner being dangerous. Others say that no breed is inherently dangerous, and that we should regard a dog as dangerous only if it has behaved in a dangerous manner. Many strongly resist any proposed solution that would involve any distinction whatsoever among the breeds. The approach advocated by Attorney Kenneth Phillips and most experts is multi-focal, in recognition of the fact that there are many causes of the dog bite epidemic, requiring many corrective measures. (See Preventing Dog Bites.)

Furthermore, it also can be concluded that this debate will not end until there is some agreement as to the nature, quality and scope of information about dog attacks. The diversity of opinion among the experts is based in great part upon disagreements about which studies, data collection methods, and other fundamentals are reliable. Until the basic facts are either learned or resolved, the conclusions will be different and the arguments will continue.

The meaning of "dangerous" and "vicious"

Let us turn exclusively to the legal meaning of "dangerous dog." A dog can be legally classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" based upon its actions, its breed, or the actions of its owner, either before or after an official hearing, pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction where the dog is present. A dog classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" is subject to being confined or kept pursuant to strict rules, and might even be euthanized, and its owner can be fined, jailed and ordered to do or not do things in the future that pertain to animals.

This type of law is referred to generically as the "dangerous dog law," and usually is found in the municipal or county code, but often is part of the state code. Additionally, there may be state court decisions that have become part of the "dangerous dog law." Furthermore, the regulations of the local authorities, such as the city's animal control department, are an essential ingredient to the dangerous dog law, even though they technically may not be part of the law itself.

The law often makes a distinction between the words "dangerous" and "vicious." When both words are used, "dangerous" usually refers to the risk of harm by any action of the dog, whether or not benign, such as biting, jumping, slamming against, grabbing, swiping with its paws, and over-friendliness that is expressed as jumping upon. For example, a dog that has the habit of running to a person and jumping enthusiastically upon him could be considered dangerous because of the risk of harm to an elderly pedestrian. Attorney Kenneth Phillips also has contended that a dog's propensity to chase and fight with other domestic animals should be considered dangerous to people because of the high number of serious injuries to people that occur during such incidents. (See "A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people," in Dangerous and Vicious Dogs.) The term "vicious" refers to a dog that has done or communicated by its actions an intention, habit, tendency or propensity to do something harmful to people. For example, a dog that has a habit of jumping upon people might be considered dangerous but not vicious.

The basis for classifying a dog as "dangerous" or "vicious" differs from one jurisdiction to the next. All jurisdictions are interested in eliminating that which poses unacceptable risk, but from place to place the focus of the "dangerous dog law" can be the actions of a particular dog, its breed, or the acts or omissions of its owner. In some jurisdictions, for example, a dog that threatens a person but does not inflict actual physical injuries is classified as dangerous, whereas in other places it is not. In some places, a dog is regarded as dangerous if the owner of the dog has violated certain animal control rules more than a given number of times. In a sense, the owner is actually the dangerous one, and the dog's confinement or existence is regulated not because of the dog's behavior but because of its potential to create harm in the hands of that particular owner. Also, as noted above, several nations and American cities classify certain breeds as "dangerous" simply on the basis of breed, and regardless of any particular dog's disposition, temperament or behavior.

In conclusion, although we may feel that we know a dangerous dog when we see one, it turns out that dangerousness is a political and controversial topic, and the laws about it are confusing and contradictory. 

The problem with statistics

The conclusions that we draw about dangerous canines is derived from what we know about them. Our information primarily comes from our own random experiences, accounts of friends and family, and what we pick up from our culture. Norman Rockwell, the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off," and countless works of entertainment have presented dog attacks as being prosaic or even great fun. Less often, we are exposed to media accounts, governmental studies, lawmakers' arguments, reports from organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control, and the opinions of experts who have conducted original research.

Unfortunately, however, there are serious gaps in the data on this subject, leaving our assumptions and conclusions open to doubt. One of the most serious deficiencies pertains to the nature of the particular attack, meaning whether it was an angry assault, a playful turn of the head that resulted in a tooth catching the victim's skin, or something in between. In some cases, we are more interested in vicious attacks and less interested in pure accidents. For example, we need accurate information about vicious attacks when we debate the issue of breed bans. There are times, however, when we may be more interested in pure accidents, such as when considering whether dogs should be permitted in day care centers and hair salons. The nature of the attack is an inherently difficult issue to study on a wide-scale basis. To do so requires the questioning of witnesses and an impartial evaluation that is free of bias. In other words, it requires that we study trials or attend trials. This is feasible but has not been attempted to date.

Another deficiency is the extent of the damage inflicted on the victim. In most cases, we need to know which dogs are associated with the greatest damage. Such information is of prime importance in the debate on breed bans, the legal definition of an "assistance animal," the crafting of fair housing regulations on the federal and state level, and in similar matters. In some instances, however, we want to add up all of the scratches and nips too. There are people, such as parents, day care operators, dog park stewards and others, who need to compare a wide variety of characteristics of dogs, including whether a certain breed is more likely to scratch and nip.

The studies of fatal dog attacks or "canine homicides" are potentially most useful because they give us more details and focus on obviously serious injuries. Nevertheless, even these studies raise questions. Three commonly accepted sources of information about canine homicides are the CDC, Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People), and Karen Delise (author of Fatal Dog Attacks). However, none of their figures agree. This is largely because of the difficulties involved in gathering dog bite statistics. When the CDC reported on canine homicides, one of their methods of ensuring accuracy was to eliminate all death reports that did not appear in LexisNexis. When Delise did her study, she included all homicides which were confirmed in other reliable ways, such as by interviews and police files, and arrived at a figure that was 100 deaths higher than the CDC. Clifton's study includes both the USA and Canada, and is derived from newspaper accounts as well as his review of photographs and files.

Delise illustrates the information problem in the following graphic way (quoted from E-mail by her to Attorney Kenneth Phillips):

Consider five fatal attacks included in the CDC statistics.

A man was bitten in the forearm by a Pit bull. The bite was not serious but introduced into the wound was a virulent and fast spreading bacteria. The man died 4 days later from this virulent bacterial infection.

A teenage girl give birth to a infant, distraught and frightened, she tossed the hours-old infant into a neighboring-junk-strewn yard where two Pit bulls resided. The dogs killed the newborn.

A German shepherd mixed breed dog went into a bedroom, lifted a newborn out of a crib and carried the infant (by the head) into the living room  where the adults were seated.

A man restrains his girlfriend, while ordering his Pit bull to repeatedly attack her.  He is eventually convicted of murder and is serving a 20-year sentence.

An elderly man attempts to stop his German Shepherd dog from fence fighting with his neighbor's dog, the dog turns on his owner, severely mauling him, inflicting fatal head and neck wounds.

The CDC was right, in that five people died as a result of a dog bite. But were all these bites the result of aggression? Were they the same type or level of aggression? Which behaviors initiated the attack, human or canine? So the number of deaths by dogs (as per the CDC) cannot be used to define aggression, or the aggression of certain breeds, as aggression is not defined or qualified.

The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

The court then stated that,

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.

Serial attacks and rampage attacks

Dogs that engage in serial attacks and rampage attacks are obviously dangerous. A "serial attack" is an instance of a dog injuring someone after having injured a person or an animal on a previous occasion. A "rampage attack" is an instance of a dog attacking multiple people or animals during a single incident. Merritt Clifton, the editor of Animal People, has maintained meticulous logs of dog attacks for many years. He gave Dog Bite Law permission to republish the following information about serial and rampage attacks:

A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people 

There has been no published study of the number of dog bites suffered by humans which resulted from an attack or attempted attack by one dog against another dog. Nevertheless, the experience of Attorney Kenneth Phillips suggests that a significant percentage of bites to humans result from such incidents. For that reason, it is his opinion that a dog's propensity to attack other dogs clearly makes that dog dangerous to people.

Approximately one-third of Mr. Phillips' cases started out as a dog attacking another dog, and then turned into a dog attacking a person. For example:

• A 14-year-old girl was walking her puppy in a small Texas town. Across the street, a pit bull in the fenced front yard spied the puppy. The pit jumped the fence and raced toward the girl and her pet. Seeing the pit coming, the girl picked up her puppy and held it over her head. The pit bull arrived and began biting the girl on her arms, legs and buttocks, which left her with ugly, permanent scars. The physical injuries and medical expenses resulted in a settlement of $100,000.00.

• An eye surgeon took his dog to a dog park. While there, his dog and another began to fight. The other dog was a mastiff; the doctor's dog was a labrador. The mastiff grabbed the labrador by the throat and started shaking it. Neither the mastiff's owner nor the doctor could make the mastiff let go. The doctor had a can of Mace in his pocket. He sprayed Mace into the eyes of the mastiff. It let go of the labrador's throat and began biting the doctor on his hand. As a result of the injuries to his hand, the doctor finds it difficult to engage in his occupation as an eye surgeon who has to do microsurgery -- a job that requires steady hands. The settlement was $50,000.00.

On the basis of cases which he handled or was involved in, Mr. Phillips is of the opinion that one of the things that makes any dog dangerous to people is its propensity to attack other dogs. The reason is that the owner of the other dog is often nearby, either trying to pull the dog away, holding the dog, or breaking up the fight. It is natural for a human being to protect his or her pet. This is a normal human response to a dog fight -- unless the person is a criminal who attends dog fights.

Therefore this is an unpublicized danger worthy of further attention and study. For example, people need to know how to protect their dog (vigilance, keep it on a leash, be familiar with the other dogs in the neighborhood, etc.) and how to break up a dog fight without getting hurt (grabbing a dog by its legs rather than reaching into its mouth). The authorities need to study the issue further.

There is a side of this that is a current hot topic in the dog world: breed specific laws. It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill other small animals. Like it or not, that is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog. Any one pit bull might be sweet to its owner, but is still "hard-wired" to kill other small animals. For that reason, pit bulls are dangerous to people because they have the in-born propensity to attack other people's pets, which often results in a redirected attack against the other people, or a bite to another person.

Other ways that dogs can be considered dangerous 

Killer dogs are not necessarily the only dangerous dogs. In some circumstances, any dog can be dangerous. Here are some examples:

Overly playful

A dangerous propensity can include dangerous playfulness and over-demonstrative affection:

"[O]ne who keeps a large dog that he knows to be accustomed to fawn violently upon children and adults is liable under [section 509 of the Restatement] for harm done by its dangerous playfulness or over-demonstrative affection .... [Par.] ... [L]ikewise [i]f the possessor knows that his dog has the playful habit of jumping up on visitors, he will be liable without negligence when the dog jumps on a visitor, knocks him down and breaks his hip .... " (Restatement Second of Torts, sec. 509, comments (c) and (i), cited in Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915.) 

Excessive number of dogs

Too many dogs might be dangerous; the City of Beverly Hills apparently thinks so, judging by this section of the Municipal Code:

Sec. 5-2.204. Walking dogs. It shall be unlawful for any person owning, controlling, or having in their care or custody, whether upon a leash or not, upon any public street, alley, or public place or upon any unenclosed land or property, four (4) or more dogs at any one time.  (5-1.206 Amd.) 

Training of attack dogs

Some jurisdictions have laws making it an offense to train attack dogs on residential property. The Virginia State Code contains the following provision:

3.1-796.93:2. Authority to prohibit training of attack dogs.

Any county with the urban county executive form of government may enact an ordinance which prohibits persons from training dogs on residential property to attack. As used in this section, "attack" means to attack or respond aggressively, either with or without command. Any such ordinance shall exempt from its provisions the training of dogs owned by any person who resides on the property. (1999, c. 848.)

Based on the authority given in section 3.1-796.93:2, the following provision was enacted in Fairfax County, VA:

Section 41.1-2-18. Prohibition on training of attack dogs.

It is unlawful for any person to train dogs, on property used for residential purposes, to attack or respond aggressively, either with or without command. However, this prohibition shall not prohibit a person from training dogs owned by such person on the property where the owner of the dogs being trained resides. (26-04-41.1.)

Canine homicides: July 2006 to present

The term "canine homicide" refers to the death of a person which is caused by a dog. There are many caveats when considering reports of fatal dog attacks. Dr. Richard Polsky's website entitled Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States contains a disclaimer that applies to not only his site, but Dog Bite Law and any other publication, book, list or other report pertaining to canine homicides. Dr. Polsky points out that not all deaths involving dogs are included in these lists; that the breed of dog is frequently misstated, especially where the pit bull is concerned; and that these reports should not be used to support breed specific legislation.

In Karen Delise' book, Fatal Dog Attacks, the author writes about the different methodologies that are used for reporting canine homicides. As mentioned above, in The Problem With Statistics, she reported many more dog attacks than the Centers for Disease Control during the period covered in her book. The reason is that she investigated any and all reliable accounts of these fatalities, while the CDC confined itself to published accounts which appeared in LexisNexis.

This underscores the need for more extensive and accurate investigation and reporting of dog attacks in general. This is one of the suggestions made by Attorney Kenneth Phillips in his 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Attacks. Unless we know more about dog attacks, it makes little sense to formulate specific solutions.

Beginning July 2006, this web site began summarizing, on a monthly basis, the canine homicide cases. The results are reported below. More details about these attacks can be found on the authoritative and comprehensive web site of DogsBite.org, in the section on bite statistics.

On July 27th, 71-year-old Ms. Jimmie May McConnell was in her yard in Kansas City, Kan., when a pit bull jumped over her fence and killed her.

Earlier in the month, 3-year-old Mariah Puga of Hargill, Texas, was killed by her parents pit bulls.

John Brannaman, 81, died of a heart attack at Orlando, Florida, on July 31st after he was mauled by two pit bulls in front of his home when he tried to retrieve garbage cans from the road.

On August 18th, a Presa Canario ripped the jugular vein from the neck of its owner, Shawna Willey, 30, in Tamarac, Florida. She was giving the dog a bath and it bit her a half dozen times. This is the same breed of dog that killed Diane Whipple (see below).

On August 30th, a man was killed by a boxer that was confined in a dog pen, in Miami.

On October 3, 2006, 2-year-old Julius Graham of Greene County, North Carolina, was killed by a Rottweiler.

On October 8, 2006, 44-year-old Jeannine Fusco was killed in Ramapo, NY, by a pit bull that she was taking care of for a friend.

On October 28, 2006, 40-year-old Tim McCurry of Montgomery County, TX, was killed by a pit bull that he was considering buying for home protection.

November 2006: November broke the monthly record for canine homicides: there were 7. Three were in one-bite states.

On November 3, two-year-old Ariel Pogue of Tallapoosa County, Alabama, was mauled to death outside her home by one of her parents' three Rottweilers, in the presence of her mother.

Also on November 3, 10-year-old Matthew Davis of Dillon, South Carolina was killed by six dogs that attacked him outside a rural home.

On November 4, one-year-old Allen L. Young died after he was mauled at home by his dad's four pit bulls, which took the boy from his bed at night.

On November 6, two-year-old Luis Fernando Romero Jr. was killed after being mauled by two Rottweilers at his home near Tucson, Arizona.

On November 8, a pit bull was found eating the body of Richard Adams, in Phenix City, Alabama, after it killed him.

On November 13, two Rottweilers killed 40-year-old James L. Eisaman of Summit County, Ohio.

On November 21, two dogs killed 4-year-old Pedro Rios in east Harris County, Texas, as he was playing outside his house.

December 2006: There were no canine homicides in the USA in December 2006.

2007 Overview

In 2007, the USA had 33 fatal dog attacks on people. This was the first full year in which details were published by Dog Bite Law (www.dogbitelaw.com). The home page of Dog Bite Law contains an analysis of the 2007 statistics, especially as they relate to the one bite rule. The month-by-month summary is as follows:

January 2007: There were 4 canine homicides in the USA in January 2007. All were in one-bite states.

In San Antonio, TX, 10-year-old Amber Jones was fatally attacked by a neighbor's pit bull on January 12, 2007. She previously had played with the dog.

In St. Louis, MO (Missouri), on January 15, 2007, Linda Mittino, 69, was killed by her son's dog, a 7-year-old German shepherd. The same dog had attacked her the previous November, requiring her to submit to three hours of plastic surgery. She resisted having the dog punished for the earlier attack upon her. This time, it killed her.

In Richmond, VA, 6-year-old Matthew Logan Johnson was mauled to death on January 24, 2007, by two of seven Rottweilers owned by his parents. The dogs that killed the boy were newly adopted only days before.

In Brewton, Alabama, on January 29, 2007, 18-month-old Taylor Kitlica was killed on her front lawn by a Rottweiler that her parents had found and chained there, hoping that its owner would retrieve it.

February 2007: There was one canine homicide in the USA in February 2007. It happened in Georgia, a state that has repudiated the one-bite rule under only the most narrow circumstances. In Atlanta, Georgia, 2-year-old Robynn Bradley was mauled to death on February 16, 2007 by a pit bull mix and mastiff mix that had escaped from their pen.

March 2007: Two people were killed by dogs in the USA in March 2007, and both were in Texas, a one-bite state. On March 16, a 50-year-old woman from Friendswood, Texas, was found dead in her backyard, the victim of her own dog or dogs, of which there were three.

On March 23, a two-year-old Dallas-area girl was fatally mauled by her parents' dog at their mobile home.

May 2007: In May 2007, five Americans died as a result of being attacked by dogs. Four of the deaths were in one-bite states.

On May 13th, Celestino Rangel, a 90-year-old man in San Antonio, Texas, was killed by two pit bulls that had broken into his home and attacked him.

On May 17th, in Memphis, Tennessee, 59-year-old James Chapple, Jr., whose brutal injuries and hospital-bed testimony helped to repeal the "one bite rule" in that state, died from complications of those injuries, which were incurred earlier in the year and were also inflicted by pit bulls. (Tennessee will change from a one-bite state to a statutory strict liability state if the governor signs into law a bill that the legislature passed in May.)

On May 25th, in El Paso, Texas, 96-year-old Magdalena Silva was mauled to death by a Doberman Pinscher and a German Shepard as she was feeding the dogs.

On May 26th, a 3-year-old boy was mauled by dogs at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, and died on May 29th.

Also on May 26, 71-year-old Carshena Benjamin of Collier County, Florida, was killed by put bulls. The death was not initially attributed to dogs, however, because the criminal investigation was quietly terminated later in the year. Florida is a statutory strict liability state.

June 2007: In June 2007, two Americans died as a result of being attacked by a dog. On June 17, 2007, a 1-year-old Chow killed its owner, Phyllis G. Carroll, 63, in Connersville, Indiana.

On June 29, 2007, Mary Diana Bernal, 62, of Dallas, Texas, was killed by a pit bull owned by her brother in law, Eliasar Macias. "My dog never had any problems. He was a real friendly dog until now," Macias said. This killing happened in Daytona Beach, Florida, and the dog was in very poor health.

July 2007: In July 2007, three Americans died as a result of being attacked by a dog. A Rottweiler, chained in its owner's unfenced front yard, killed 5-year-old Tiffany Pauley of Carroll County, GA (45 miles from Atlanta). This accident illustrates the danger of chaining, which substantially increases a dog's aggression toward humans. For more about chaining, see Why Dogs Bite People.

On July 23, 2007, 11-month-old Trey Paeth of Florence, Ala., was killed in Putnam County, Tenn., by two Siberian huskies. The boy was in a screened playpen, and the dogs bit and clawed their way through it to maul him to death. His parents were in another room and did not hear anything. The dogs later were destroyed.

On July 29, 2007, a 6-month-old pit bull in Bath, New York, killed 6-year-old Sabin Jones-Abbott of Steuben County, New York. The boy had been feeding the dog minutes before the attack.

August 2007: Three Americans died in August as a result of being attacked by a dog. On August 16, 2007, 7-year-old Zachary King Jr. of Minneapolis, MN, was killed by his family's pit bull, which was kept chained in the basement. The dog had bitten others in the past.

Another chaining death occurred in McMinn County, Tennessee. On August 18, 2007, 15-month-old Elijah Rackley was killed by a chained family dog. The female Chow-mix just had puppies. See Why Dogs Bite People for more information about the dangerous practice of chaining a dog.

On August 31, 2007, 6-year-old Scott Warren of Dallas was killed by his family's pet pit bull.

September 2007: Four Americans were killed by dogs in September 2007, with three of the deaths occurring in Illinois.

On September 12, 2007, Lylie Cox, a 4-month-old girl living in Warren, Illinois, was mauled to death by a 120-pound Rottweiler. The dog was found as a stray a month before and previously had demonstrated aggression toward children.

On September 13, 2007, a pack of bulldogs killed Edward Gierlach, 91, of Iosco Township, Michigan, and Cheryl Harper, 56, of Fowlerville, Michigan. The dogs belonged to Diane Cockrell, and escaped her property through a fence intended for horses. Michigan is a statutory strict liability state.

On September 25, 2007, two dogs killed an unnamed 2-year-old boy in Lincolnton, North Carolina, which is a one-bite state.

October 2007: In October 2007, two Americans were killed by dogs.

On October 3, 2007, Tina Marie Canterbury, 42, of Middleburg, Florida, was mauled to death by the two pit bulls which she had raised from the time they were puppies. Florida is a statutory strict liability state.

On October 15, 2007, Rosalie Bivins, 65, died after a pack of five to seven dogs attacked her as she used a walker to make her way to the mailbox at the end of her driveway. This happened in Oklahoma, a strict liability state.

November 2007: In November 2007, three Americans were killed by dogs.

On November 5, 2007, 4- year-old Tori Whitehurst of Phoenix, Arizona, was killed by her parents' American Bulldog at their house. Arizona is a statutory strict liability state.

On November 6, 2007, 11-year-old Seth Lovitt was running through his own home when his parents' pit bull jumped off a couch and mauled the child to death. This happened in Killeen, Texas.

On November 12, 2007, 21-year-old Jennifer Lowe of Knox County, Tennessee, died after she was mauled by pit bulls at the residence of a friend. The police took 29 minutes to respond to neighbors' repeated 911 calls. Tennessee passed a dog bite statute this year that specifically re-enacted the one-bite rule for dog attacks that take place on the premises of the dog's owner. This means that there will be no automatic liability on the part of the owners of these killer dogs.

December 2007: In December 2007, three Americans were killed by dogs.

On December 13, 2007, Holden Jernigan, 2 years old, was mauled to death in his grandmother's back yard by her male pit bull. She was babysitting him when he went into the yard, alone. This happened in South Carolina, a statutory strict liability state. This is the second canine homicide in that state this year.

December 17, 2007, 77-year-old Blanche Broduer was attacked in Clayton, Georgia, by a pit bull in the home that the victim was house-sitting. Georgia is a "mixed" state, meaning that it has a dog bite statute which substantially re-enacted the old English one-bite rule.

On December 25, 2007, in Yermo, California, 45-year-old Kelly Caldwell was killed by up to five dogs. The dogs were running at large on the street where the victim was walking. The dogs were pit bulls and at least one belonged to a neighbor. California is a statutory strict liability state.

January 2008: Three Americans were killed by dogs in January 2008.

On January 3, 2008, 8-month-old Andrew Stein of Brooklyn, New York, was killed in his home by his parents' Doberman pinscher. New York is a one-bite state that has a dog bite statute which makes owners strictly responsible only for medical bills.

On January 18, 2008, 6-week-old Justin Mozer of Lexington, Kentucky, was killed by his uncle's Jack Russell Terrier. The uncle's pit bull and the Jack Russell Terrier were put down following this attack. Fatal attacks by Jack Russells are rare. Kentucky is a statutory strict liability state.

On January 20, 2008, 24-year-old Kelli Chapman of Longville, Louisiana, was killed by her two pit bulls. Her husband found her on the floor of their bedroom, where she died of bite trauma and blood loss. Louisiana has a dog bite statute that talks of strict liability but requires proof of dog owner negligence.

February 2008: No Americans were killed by dogs in February 2008.

March 2008: No Americans were killed by dogs in March 2008.

April 2008: One American was killed by a dog in April 2008. On April 28, 2008, Abraham Jonathan Tackett, 23 months old, wandered into a neighbor's "dog lot" when his father left him alone. A Husky on a chain killed the child in short order. The accident happened in Fort Yukon, Alaska, a one-bite state.

May 2008: Two Americans were killed by dogs in May 2008.

On May 14, 2008, Julian Slack, 3, a resident of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, was killed by a dog. This death was not reported in the press, but an article about it was published in jdnews.com and other reports of it appeared on DogsBite.com. North Carolina is a one bite state.

On May 18, 2008, Tanner Joshua Monk of Breckenridge, Stephens County, Texas, was mauled by two pit bulls, resulting in his death. Texas is a one-bite state.

June 2008: Two Americans were killed by dogs in June 2008.

Pablo Hernandez (aka Pablo Lopez), 5, of Hidalgo County, Texas, was mauled to death by a pit bull on June 18, 2008. Texas is a one bite state.

Loraine May, 74, of Brevard County, Florida, was killed by her own two dogs on June 26, 2008. Florida is a statutory strict liability state.

July 2008: Three Americans were killed by dogs in July 2008.

On July 22, 2008, Tony Evans Jr., a 3-year-old boy from Jackson, Mississippi, was playing with friends across the street from his home. The house had a carport where a pit bull was chained. The dog dragged the boy into its doghouse and killed him. Mississippi follows the ancient and outdated "one bite rule."

On July 25, 2008, Addison Sonney, a one-year-old girl from Erie, Pennsylvania, was killed by her family's English Sheepdog mix. The toddler was with her parents at a cemetery, where her father worked. The reason for the attack is unknown. Pennsylvania is a statutory strict liability state but the laws are complex, confusing and should be revised.

On July 28, 2008, Zane Alen Earles, a 2-month-old boy, was killed by his parents' dog while the child was sitting in a swing, located inside their house. This happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is a strict liability state.

August 2008: Three Americans died from dog attacks in August 2008, and a fourth was attacked this month and died in September (see September 2008, below).

Six-year-old Isis Krieger of Anchorage, Alaska, was mauled by her parents' pit bull on August 12, 2008, and perished on August 18, 2008. Alaska is a one bite state.

Robert Howard, 38, of Detroit, Michigan, was killed by a pit bull outside his home. The dog was attacking a female neighbor's dog and was threatening to go after the woman. Howard came out of his house to stop the attack. The pit bull bit him in the calf and ripped out the arteries, causing the man to bleed to death on the spot. Michigan is a statutory strict liability state. (Click here for the article.)

Henry Piotrowski, 90 years old, of Staten Island, New York, was mauled by two pit bulls on July 1, 2008, and died on August 17, 2008. One of his legs had to be amputated, and he had been in the hospital since the attack. New York's dog bite statute provides strict liability only for medical bills. For compensation other than medical bills, New York is a one bite state.

September 2008: Five Americans died from dog attacks in September 2008. Three were babies who were killed by their parents' dogs. One attack was in August 2008 and the victim died in September 2008.

On September 4, 2008, Luna McDaniel, 83, of Ville Platte, Louisiana, died as a result of being mauled by 3 pit bulls on August 24, 2008. The old woman was collecting cans in her neighborhood for recycling. Louisiana is a statutory strict liability state, provided that the owner could have prevented the injuries.

On September 6, 2008, Alexis Hennessy, a 6-day-old New Jersey girl, was attacked and killed in her crib. Her parents owned a 3-year-old Husky. They had left her and the dog alone for only a few minutes. New Jersey is a statutory strict liability state.

On September 12, 2008, Cenedi Kia Carey, a 4-month-old girl, was fatally mauled by her family's two pit bulls in their North Las Vegas home. The child was in a stroller and being watched by her grandmother. The dogs were in the back yard. They got through a screen dog to attack the girl and then, when the grandmother pulled the injured baby away, the dogs attacked again and finished the child off. Nevada is a one bite state.

On September 22, 2008, an unnamed 3-day-old girl in Warren, Ohio, was killed in her home by her parents' Husky. The girl was laying in her bassinet. Ohio is a statutory strict liability state.

On September 29, 2008, Katya Teresa Todesco, a 5-year-old girl residing in Simi Valley, California, died from a pit bull attack which occurred on September 23, 2008. The dog was in a neighbor's back yard. California is a statutory strict liability state.

October 2008: Two Americans died from dog attacks in October 2008.

Two-month-old Iokepa Liptak, a resident of Honolulu, Hawaii, was killed by his parents' dog on October 5, 2008. Hawaii has a dog bite statute that has been interpreted as essentially re-enacting the one bite rule.

On October 31, 2008, 62-year-old Chester R. Jordan of Muncie, Indiana, was killed by three of his own pitbulls, inside his residence. Indiana imposes strict liability on not only the owner, but also the possessor, keeper or harborer of the dog, but they are strictly liable only if the victim is a mail deliverer or other official.

November 2008: One American was killed by a dog in November 2008.

On November 26, 2008, an unnamed 2-year-old boy was killed by two dogs at his home in Las Vegas. Police described the dogs as "mixed breed" and "possibly" pit bulls. Nevada is a one bite state.

December 2008: One American was killed by a dog in December 2008.

On December 19, 2008, Gerald Adelmund, a 60-year-old resident of Rubidoux, California, was attacked and killed by two pit bulls. The dogs lived with him and his son, daughter-in-law and their three children. One dog was a pure pit bull, while the other was a pit bull mixed with mastiff. He was in his own back yard. California is a strict liability state.

January 2009: Five Americans were killed by dogs in January 2009.

On January 6, 2008, a five year old girl in Thomasville, Georgia, was mauled to death by her parent's pit bulls while she was playing in her own back yard. Chyenne Peppers was playing in the yard of her home when the family's three pit bulls attacked her. Her parents were home at the time, but were inside their house. Three of the factors on the Dog Attack Danger Scale were present, so the attack was predictable and avoidable. Georgia is a one-bite state.

Four-year-old Alex Angulo of Chicago, Illinois, was mauled to death by a Rottweiler on January 11, 2009. The dog belonged to his foster parents. The child was killed in his own back yard. There were three dogs present, two of them being Rottweilers. No adults were present. Three of the factors on the Dog Attack Danger Scale were present, so the attack was predictable and avoidable. Illinois is a statutory strict liability state.

On January 15, 2009, Brooklynn Grace Milburn, a 3-year-old girl from Fort Worth, Texas, was killed by a neighbor's Rottweiler dog. She was playing in her back yard when she crawled through a hole in the fence. Her parents believed that the hole was too small for her to get through. Two of the factors on the Dog Attack Danger Scale were present, so the attack was predictable and avoidable. Texas is a one-bite state.

On January 19, 2009, an 8-year-old girl Pennslyvania, Brianna Nicole Shanor, was mauled to death inside her uncle's camper, where he kept a chained-up Rottweiler-mix. Two factors on the Dog Attack Danger Scale were present, so the attack was foreseeable. Pennsylvania is a strict liability state.

Also on January 19, 2009, a 3-week-old child died after being mauled in the north-central Illinois community of Bourbonnais. The family dog, a Siberian Husky, had pulled the infant off of a bed in the master bedroom and dragged the child into a hallway. The child suffered multiple bite injuries to the head. Illinois is a strict liability state.

February 2009: There were no American canine homicides in February 2009.

March 2009: Six people were killed by dogs in the USA in March 2009, and a sixth perished from infection after being bitten.

A two-week-old baby was killed by a dog on March 4, 2009, in Mesa, Arizona. The mother had placed the infant in a low-lying bassinet or crib, with a Chow-Chow in the house. Arizona is a statutory strict liability state.

On March 16, 2009, Hill A. Williams Jr., a 38-year-old California man, was mauled to death by his two bull mastiffs, in his own back yard. California is a statutory strict liability state.

On March 22, 2009, Dustin E. Faulkner, a 3-year-old boy from Georgia, was killed by a wolf-hybrid. Details are sketchy at this time. Georgia has a dog bite statute that incorporates much of the one-bite rule (see Georgia on this site).

Dolly Newell, an 80-year-old California woman, died on March 24, 2009, several days after she was bitten in the hand by a dog while feeding it. For some reason, she told the hospital staff she injured her finger while gardening. They stitched the bite closed and she went home, to die of infection. This death will not appear in most lists of canine inflicted fatalities, but it should because it was initiated by the dog bite and it is well known that the bacteria in a dog's saliva can cause death.

On March 26, 2009, Tyson Miller, an 18-month-old Texas boy, was fatally attacked in his back yard by a female pit bull. His parents had been caring for the dog and apparently thought it to be harmless. Texas is a one-bite state and the national leader in canine homicides. (See Dog Bite Statistics.)

On March 31, 2009, two pit bulls killed Izaiah G. Cox in San Antonio, Texas, as the child was laying on a bed. The dogs broke through or went over a baby gate inside the house. When the baby's grandmother tried to rescue him, the pit bulls attacked her too, requiring hospitalization.Texas is a one-bite state and the USA's leader in fatal dog attacks on people (see Dog Bite Statistics on this site).

April 2009: Four Americans have died from dog bite injuries in April 2009.

On April 10, 2009, Michael Landry, a 4-year-old boy, was attacked by a neighbor's three boxers. The child was in the back yard of his parents' home in Louisiana. He later died of his injuries. Louisiana is a statutory strict liability state.

David B. Whiteneck Jr., 41, of Huron County, Michigan, was killed by a number of dogs belonging to his elderly, absent landlord. The date of death has not been established. Michigan is a statutory strict liability state.

On March 28, 2009, 48-year-old Gordon Lykins of Winterhaven, California was attacked by dogs near a drainage canal road a few miles north of Yuma, Arizona. He died on April 10, 2009, from those injuries. Arizona is a statutory strict liability state.

On April 23, 2009, a family pit bull killed 11-month-old Leonard Lovejoy Jr. in Detroit, Michigan. The boy was on a bed and the dog gave no warning. Michigan is a statutory strict liability state.

May 2009: No Americans were killed by dogs.

June 2009: Two Americans died from dog bite injuries this month.

On June 15, 2009, two pit bulls killed Justin Clinton, 10, a resident of Texas. The dogs and the boy were on public property. Justin is the USA's 16th canine-inflicted human fatality in 2009. Texas is the nation's leader in fatal dog attacks. It is a one-bite state.

On June 27, 2009, two pit bulls and a collie mix killed Gabrial Reese Mandress, 3, of Marion, Illinois. The dogs belonged to his parents, and he was killed in his own back yard. Illinois is a strict liability state.

July 2009: No Americans were killed by dogs.

Read The Dog Bite Law Blog for information and commentary on recent death cases, plus updates on dog owner prosecutions and other legal news pertaining to dog ownership.

August 2009: Four Americans died from dog bite injuries.

On August 10, 2009, 20-year-old Carter Delaney of Louden County, Virginia, was killed by pit bulls which he cared for, and which were owned by his brother. It is a one-bite state.

On August 14, 2009, 66-year-old Sherry Schweder and her husband, Lothar Schweder, 76-years-old, were killed by an unknown number of dogs near the couple's home outside Atlanta, GA.

On August, 15, 2009, a 3-day-old infant was snatched from his crib and killed by his parents' pit bull. This happened in Hardy County, W. Virginia, and no names are available at this time.

September 2009: One American died from dog bite injuries.

On September 28, 2009, 23-month old Jasmine Deane died after being bitten several times by her family's pit bull, which was chained outside their house. This happened in Orange County, Virginia. It is a one-bite state.

October 2009: Two American children died from dog bite injuries, both inflicted by pit bulls, and both while under the care of a babysitter.

On October 23, 2009, Colton Smith (17 months old) was killed by a pit bull in the yard of the child's babysitter. This happened in Delhi, California, which is a statutory strict liability state.

On October 28, 2009, Matther Clayton Hurt (2 years of age) was killed by a pit bull which was chained in a neighbor's yard. The boy had wandered several houses away from his own, as he was being cared for by a babysitter. The incident was in Prescott, Arizona, a statutory strict liability state.

Additional information about death cases

• For this month's death toll, see the home page of Dog Bite Law.

• To read about dog bite cases that resulted in criminal charges, see Criminal Penalties for a Dog Bite.

• For Attorney Kenneth Phillips' editorial opinions about current fatal dog attacks and other issues pertaining to dog bite law, see The Dog Bite Law Blog.

Attacks that resulted in serious injuries but not death

Every year, 800,000 Americans are injured so severely by a dog that they have to seek medical attention. There are many such cases per month. Examples include:

	Braeden Kelly -- neighbor's German shepard ripped off scalp and cheek of 5-year-old boy August 1, 2003, Atlanta, Ga. A neighbor's German shepard ripped off the center of Braeden Kelly's scalp, his entire right cheek, and part of his left cheek. Although there was a law in Atlanta that required dogs to be confined or on a leash, the neighbors always allowed their children to take the dog out to play without a leash. On the day of this attack, the dog went 300 feet up the street to attack the boy. The Braeden Kelly Case is significant to Georgia dog bite victims because the trial court recognized that, despite 100 years of contrary legal precedents in that state, a victim should be able to bring a claim based upon dog owner negligence. Attorney Kenneth Phillips represented Braeden Kelly and upon request will transmit the court documents without charge to Georgia attorneys who represent victims. Click here to contact Mr. Phillips.
	Emily Paige Stinnett -- family pit bull ripped off 4-year-old's scalp April 26, 2004 , Hodgenville, Ky. The Stinnett family kept their pit bull on a chain in their back yard, where they allowed their 4-year-old daughter to play. The dog got free, attacked the girl, and ripped off three-quarters of her scalp. Sheriffs cut open the dog's stomach and removed the scalp, which the dog ate, but a plastic surgeon could reattach only part of it. The child survived, will have a total of six or seven surgeries, and will never have a normal appearance.
	Ruby Sharum -- great-grandson's pit bull caused amputation of 91-year-old woman's arms  February 13, 2004, Orange, CA. A 91-year-old woman, Ruby Sharum, and her granddaughter were putting away groceries when her great-grandson's pit bull growled and then lunged at Sharum. The attack required doctors to amputate both of the woman's arms below the elbows. A neighbor, Shelbi Moore, said that she made 10 complaints to animal control authorities during the previous year.

Regulation of dangerous and vicious dogs

The regulation of dangerous dogs is accomplished by State penal laws, city and county ordinances, regulatory laws, and civil laws including civil litigation.

• State penal codes usually contain a variety of laws which make illegal certain things about dogs. Examples would be dog fighting laws, cruelty laws, and dangerous dog laws. One specific example would be the law of the State of California, which you can read below. To find these laws for other States, one needs to look in the penal code(s) of the State.

• City and county codes and ordinances usually have detailed laws that identify and regulate dangerous dogs. The laws vary widely in their approach to regulation. Attorney Kenneth Phillips has drafted a Model Dangerous Dog Law. Other examples of comprehensive laws are those of San Francisco and Los Angeles, which can be found below.

The dangerous dog laws generally attempt to define the characteristics of dangerous dogs, set forth the procedure for declaring a particular dog to be dangerous, and establish what will become of a dangerous dog and its owner. These laws differ widely in how they do all of those things. They might provide that a dangerous dog can be killed on the spot, can be seized and killed after notice to the owner and an opportunity to be heard, or can have conditions imposed regarding its confinement and appearances on public property. Additionally, the laws might impose upon the owner a period of time in jail, a fine, and/or a prohibition against owning another dog for a period of years.

In recent years there have been many calls for laws that would classify entire breeds of dog as dangerous, because of a perception that certain breeds such as the pit bull and the Rottweiler can be controlled. Such legislation is referred to as "breed specific law." This subject is explored at length at the section of Dog Bite Law (www.dogbitelaw.com) entitled Breed Specific Laws.

It is imperative for every community to have a dangerous dog law in addition to animal control laws. See the Model Dangerous Dog Law by Attorney Kenneth Phillips. To understand the reasons why such laws are needed, see Preventing Dog Bites.

Example of Dangerous Dog Regulation: the California Civil Code

3342.5.  (a) The owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to remove any danger presented to other persons from bites by the animal.

Any person, the local district attorney or city attorney may take action if the same dog has bitten a human being two or more times. This can be referred to as a "private animal control" case: 

3342.5   (b) Whenever a dog has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions, any person, the district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action against the owner of the animal to determine whether conditions of the treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances existing at the time of the bites have been changed so as to remove the danger to other persons presented by the animal.  This action shall be brought in the county where a bite occurred.  The court, after hearing, may make any order it deems appropriate to prevent the recurrence of such an incident, including, but not limited to, the removal of the animal from the area or its destruction if necessary.

3342.5  (c) Whenever a dog trained to fight, attack, or kill has bitten a human being, causing substantial physical injury, any person, including the district attorney, or city attorney may bring an action against the owner of the animal to determine whether conditions of the treatment or confinement of the dog or other circumstances existing at the time of the bites have been changed so as to remove the danger to other persons presented by the animal.  This action shall be brought in the county where a bite occurred.  The court, after hearing, may make any order it deems appropriate to prevent the  recurrence of such an incident, including, but not limited to, the removal of the animal from the area or its destruction if necessary.

3342.5  (d) Nothing in this section shall authorize the bringing of an action pursuant to subdivision (b) based on a bite or bites inflicted upon a trespasser, or by a dog used in military or police work if the bite or bites occurred while the dog was actually performing in that capacity.

Another Example of Dangerous Dog Regulation: the California Food & Agriculture Code

A "potentially dangerous dog" is a dog that meets the criteria set forth in section 31602 of the California Food & Agriculture Code:

31602. "Potentially dangerous dog" means any of the following:

   (a) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. 

   (b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing a less severe injury than as defined in Section 31604. 

   (c) Any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic  animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog.

A "vicious dog" is one that meets the criteria set forth in section 31603 from the same code:

31603. "Vicious dog" means any of the following:

   (a) Any dog seized under Section 599a of the Penal Code and upon the sustaining of a conviction of the owner or keeper under subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.

   (b) Any dog which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being. 

   (c) Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog which, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in Section 31602 or is maintained in violation of section 31641, 31642, or 31643.

A "severe injury" is defined as follows:

31604.  "Severe injury" means any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic surgery.

A vicious dog can be destroyed by the local animal control department. If it is not destroyed, the Court must impose conditions upon the ownership of the dog to protect the public.

Examples of Municipal and County Codes

The City of Los Angeles also has its own procedure for determining whether a dog is "dangerous." See section 53.34.4. The County of Los Angeles has extensive and detailed laws pertaining to dangerous and vicious dogs.

The County of Sacramento permits any person to institute a "private animal control" case with the animal control department. Section 8.34.030 (Filing of Charges) states that "[a]ny person, including employees of Animal Control, possessing personal knowledge of facts that there exists a vicious or dangerous animal within the unincorporated area of the County or those incorporated areas served by the Chief of Animal Control may file with the Chief of Animal Control a written affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury" containing the charges against the offending dog owner. To see that county's definition of a dangerous dog, see Sacramento County Code of Ordinances re Definitions.

Criminal penalties for owners of dangerous dogs

Criminal penalties for the owners of dangerous dogs are covered in the section of this web site entitled Criminal penalties for dog bites. For example, California law provides that the owner of a dog determined to be a "vicious dog" (see definition) may be prohibited by the city or county from owning, possessing, controlling, or having custody of any dog for a period of up to three years. A violation of that prohibition is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in the county jail. There are cities that have similar laws, such as Section 53.34.4 (Dangerous Animal - Procedures) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

Dealing with a dangerous dog as a public nuisance

When a dangerous dog terrorizes a neighborhood, it may be possible to invoke the public nuisance laws. Consider the situation that arises when a neighbor's dogs manage to get loose day after day, chasing children and preventing them from walking down the street. Those dogs might well qualify as a public nuisance under laws such as California Penal Code sections 370 to 373a:

370.  Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a public nuisance.

371.  An act which affects an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, as specified in the last section, is not less a nuisance because the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals is unequal.

372.  Every person who maintains or commits any public nuisance, the punishment for which is not otherwise prescribed, or who willfully omits to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of a public nuisance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

373a.  Every person who maintains, permits, or allows a public nuisance to exist upon his or her property or premises, and every person occupying or leasing the property or premises of another who maintains, permits or allows a public nuisance to exist thereon, after reasonable notice in writing from a health officer or district attorney or city attorney or prosecuting attorney to remove, discontinue or abate the same has been served upon such person, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished accordingly; and the existence of such nuisance for each and every day after the service of such notice shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense, and it is hereby made the duty of the district attorney, or the city attorney of any city the charter of which imposes the duty upon the city attorney to prosecute state misdemeanors, to prosecute all persons guilty of violating this section by continuous prosecutions until the nuisance is abated and removed.

Differences between animal control orders and judicial orders

There are several possible remedies for dangerous dogs, including an animal control proceeding or "dangerous dog hearing," a court order such as an injunction or statutory remedy imposed by a court, and remedies which are civil in nature, such as claims against the dog owner for the payment of compensation, eviction from leased premises, etc. The focus of this section is on the difference between animal control orders and judicial orders.

Under a properly drafted dangerous dog ordinance or statute, the animal control department or an administrative hearing officer can often issue orders pertaining to the dog itself. For example, the bench officer at a dog court proceeding might be empowered to order the destruction of the dog.

The ordinance or statute usually gives the animal control department specific powers to enforce such an order. Those powers might include coming onto the property of the dog owner, seizing the dog and related items such as things used for dog fighting, and other authorizations. This often contrasts sharply with what a judge can do.

When a judge issues an order, and the order is not complied with, the remedy is a conviction of being in contempt of court. In other words, when a judge orders a dog destroyed or confined in a certain manner, a person's failure to do as ordered is punished with jail or a fine. The court cannot send someone to pick up the dog unless there is a specific ordinance or statute empowering the judge to direct animal control or the police to the dog owner's home for that purpose.

Because of the constitutional separation of powers -- meaning the equality that every branch of government has with the other branches -- a judge usually cannot order animal control to do anything, without being empowered by a specific statute. The judge operates under the judicial branch, and animal control is under the executive branch. These are equal branches of government that cannot order each other to do anything. However, the judge has full power to order the arrest and incarceration of a person who violates a law or is in contempt of court. That is because the penal statutes grant that power to judges, authorizing them to issue arrest warrants and to direct the sheriff to keep a person in jail for specific length of time.

Therefore, when animal control issues the order, the remedy can actually relate directly to the dog, meaning its confinement or even euthanasia. When a court issues orders to the dog owner, the remedy is to have the dog owner prosecuted and thrown in jail or fined or both. These are very different remedies, in that one is against the dog and the other is against the dog's owner.

This can have important ramifications in dog bite cases. Most cases involve a friend, family member or relative. If animal control gets involved, the dog can be dealt with directly. However, if there is an inadequate dangerous dog ordinance or statute, and the court has to issue the order regarding the dog, it is possible that the reluctance to see a friend, family member or relative thrown in jail can result in the order being a useless act.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

From 1979 through 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the United States. (Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489-92; Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.) In the latter study, which covered six years, the researchers made these findings:

• There were 109 bite-related fatalities.
• 57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age.
• 81% of the attacks involved an unrestrained dog.
• 22% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog OFF the owner's property.
• 59% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog ON the owner's property.
• 18% of the deaths involved a restrained dog ON the owner's property.
• 10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants.
• The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by Rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths).

The authors pointed out that many breeds are involved in fatal attacks. The death rate from dog bite-related fatalities (18 deaths per year) in the 6-year study period remained relatively constant compared with the prior 10 years. The authors emphasized that "most of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners." They recommended public education about dogs and dog ownership.

The Humane Society of the United States and the Centers for Disease Control did another study of dog bite related fatalities (DBRF's) during 1995-1996. Here are some of their findings:

• At least 25 persons died as the result of dog attacks (11 in 1995 and 14 in 1996). However, the sources used for the study are thought to have underestimated the number of DBRF's by 26%.
• 20 (80%) occurred among children (three were up to one month old, one was aged 5 months, 10 were aged 1-4 years, and six were aged 5-11 years).
• 5 occurred among adults (ages 39, 60, 75, 81, and 86 years). 
• Most (18 [72%]) DBRF's occurred among males. 
• Of 23 deaths with sufficient information for classification, seven (30%) involved an unrestrained dog off the owner's property, five (22%) involved a restrained dog on the owner's property, and 11 (48%) involved an unrestrained dog on the owner's property. 
• Of the 25 deaths, nine (36%) involved one dog, nine (36%) involved two dogs, two (8%) involved three dogs, and five (20%) involved six to 11 dogs. 
• All the attacks by unrestrained dogs off the owner's property involved more than one dog. 
• Of the three deaths among neonates, all occurred on the dog owner's property and involved one dog and a sleeping child.
• Fatal attacks were reported from 14 states (California [four deaths]; Florida and Pennsylvania [three each]; Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, and South Dakota [two each]; and Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington [one each]).

Despite the fact that researchers generally recommend public education as the most likely cure for the dog bite epidemic, there has been widespread review of existing local and state dangerous-dog laws, including proposals for adoption of breed-specific restrictions to prevent such episodes.

Footnote 2

State legislatures have enacted "findings" which establish in court and elsewhere the existence of the dog bite epidemic. For example, the Colorado State Legislature enacted this finding (codified in Colorado Revised Statutes):

18-9-204.5. Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog.

(1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that:

(a) Dangerous dogs are a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens throughout the state because of the number and serious nature of attacks by such dogs; and

(b) The regulation and control of dangerous dogs is a matter of statewide concern.

Similarly, the California State Legislature studied dog bites and passed this finding (which is codified as section 31601 of the Food & Agriculture Code):

31601.  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: 

   (a) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state.  In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs.  Many of these attacks have occurred in public places. 

   (b) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs. 

   (c) The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.

SEC. 3.  This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect....

In order to protect the public from the rising incidents of dog maulings across the state it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

10.37.010 Purpose of this chapter. Within the county of Los Angeles there are potentially dangerous and vicious dogs that have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the county which should be abated.