Dog Bite Law |
||
| Electronic Pet Containment and Liability for Dog Bites | ||
|
Will it work, is it legal, and will it prevent dog bites? The answer to these questions is "sometimes." |
||
|
|
|
||||||||
Pet containment systems, generally The term "pet containment system" might be
anything that confines a pet to a certain territory, but usually is an
electrical device such as an electronic fence or electronic collar. An electronic fence or electronic collar is
defined in ordinances as a fence or a collar that controls the movement
of a dog by emitting an electrical shock when the animal wearing the collar
nears the boundary of the owner's, keeper's or harborer's property.
The collar may be controlled manually by a person or automatically in
a predetermined manner. The shock is intended as a warning and, depending
on the type of system and the settings used by the owner, possibly a punishment.
Note: contrast an electronic fence with an electric fence.
The latter is a physical fence that conducts electricity so that anyone
touching it will receive an electric shock.
Examples of such electrical systems include:
You can read about more systems at PetSmart.Com, which has a web page that lists "electronic training solutions."
Dog bites and electronic pet containment systemsPet containment systems such as electronic fences do not prevent dog bites as well as ordinary fences. Dogs get excited and run through the boundaries. Neighborhood children are particularly at risk because the electrical systems do not prevent the kids from approaching the dog, and mislead kids because of the dog's apparent good behavior (which in fact was caused by the electronic fence).Consider the following E-mail message:
Electronic systems are not always legalIf the municipal code requires a fence, and does not address electronic systems, then the dog owner must provide a physical fence, not an electronic one. Some codes specifically forbid electronic pet containment systems ("Dogs shall not be considered confined to the premises of the residential property of their owner, keeper or harborer if the only restraining device is an electric fence.") These codes use the term "electronic fence" without stating exactly what devices are forbidden (review the different products that are described above, and try to determine which is an "electric fence" and which, if any, are not). Due process requires that a prohibition must be stated clearly, or else is unenforceable. If an individual is not sure whether a particular system violates a local ordinance, he can speak with a supervisor at the animal control department and ask for guidance. But many cities have made it legal to use electronic fences and electronic collars. An example is the Overland Park Municipal Code 6.08.020. The second subsection 3 of subsection (a) provides:
The problem mentioned above applies here too: if an electronic pet containment system is not an "electronic fence" or "electronic collar," apparently the dog owner will not benefit from the loosely worded ordinance.
Manufacturers, distributors and sellers of electronic fences might be liable for some dog bite injuriesThe advertising for many electronic pet containment systems refers to the "safety" of the product. One company bragged that their product would "create safe zones for meter readers, mail carriers." The implication is that people will be safe. In fact, people and animals will be safe only from dogs that pay attention to the electronic fence, not from dogs that don't. And people who wander into the dog's territory will not be safe at all.If an electronic containment system is advertised in a way that misleads a dog owner, it would be possible to hold the manufacturer, distributor and sellers liable for injuries that resulted from the misleading information. The legal basis for the claim would be the doctrine of product liability.
|
|
