Animal Law in a Nutshell
Authors:
Frasch, Pamela D. / Hessler, Katherine M. / Waisman, Sonia S.
Edition:
2nd
Copyright Date:
2016
22 chapters
have results for animal law
Chapter 1. Introduction 5 results
- Laws protecting, impacting, regulating, and controlling animals have been an integral part of American jurisprudence since the very early days of colonization. However, the distinct field now known as “Animal Law” is a relatively new development. Animal Law brings together statutes and cases from multiple fields of law that consider, at their core, the interests of animals or the interests of humans with respect to animals. The way in which the law defines and treats animals often has depended on prevailing public attitudes about morality and economics. Although the role of animals and societal perceptions of them have changed over time, those factors remain at work in modern statutes and litigation. As a result, a particular animal may receive more or less protection under our laws depending on that animal’s role in society. For example, a mouse who is a companion animal will enjoy substantial protection, while that same mouse in a research facility is virtually unprotected.
- When the authors of this Nutshell first began teaching animal law in the mid-1990s, only a handful of other American law schools offered an animal law course. Today, there are well over 150 American Bar Association accredited law schools with at least one animal law course. During the same twenty year period, we have seen similar dramatic growth in the number of city, state, regional, and national bar association animal law committees and sections and the number of legal periodicals devoted to animal law. Equally impressive are the number of animal law textbooks and other resources available to students and practitioners alike who wish to deepen their understanding of this area of law. It is hard to know precisely what has prompted this significant growth, but some commentators believe it is due to our rapidly evolving understanding of animals as complex beings with their own interests worthy of protection. Other commentators point to the changing nature of families in the United...
- To cover this highly interdisciplinary field of law, this Nutshell is organized according to the individual disciplines as they apply to animals or intersect with animal-related issues. Due to the overlap in issues that can arise in various contexts, such as constitutional challenges, for example, those issues appear in multiple chapters. Similarly, there is interplay between tort causes of action and the remedies available for them.
- Given the dynamic nature of Animal Law, this book necessarily has touched on only the main areas of concern for students and practitioners. In order to keep this book to one volume, we had to make difficult decisions regarding what to include and what to omit. This was a frustrating exercise for us, and we understand that some readers may wish that their favorite area of Animal Law had been covered more completely in this book. For those readers, we encourage you to continue your study and research. Even the most cursory search on the internet will yield multiple excellent resources for you to learn more about your particular area of interest. In addition, at the conclusion of most chapters we include suggested readings designed to guide further research.
- We hope you enjoy learning more about this fascinating area of law.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 11. Farmed Animals 108 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The primary state method of regulating the conditions and treatment of animals is the anti-cruelty statute. For more on such statutes, see Chapter 3. However, state anti-cruelty laws generally exempt either farmed animals or all practices that are customary in raising them. Additionally, state anti-cruelty laws may define “animal” to exclude farmed animals, so they are not covered in the first instance.
- Advocates seeking to improve conditions of farmed animals have achieved some success in recent years regarding egg production, veal, and gestation crates, as discussed earlier in this chapter. However, on the whole, legal regulation relating to the conditions of farmed animals has changed only minimally for some animals and not at all for most animals. Importantly, advocates are barred from bringing an action where they lack standing. Constitutional standing is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9. Subsection A below discusses the application of standing in actions to improve conditions of farmed animals. Additionally, federal laws may preempt state laws that seek to improve conditions for farmed animals. Finally, some states have passed “ag-gag” laws that prohibit animal advocates from even documenting abuse of farmed animals.
- Generally, states lack laws or regulations applicable to farmed animals, and often explicitly exempt farmed animals from legal protections that apply to other categories of animals. In fact, state laws are striking in their breadth of exemptions and the acceptance of both traditional and modern husbandry practices. After addressing the various types of exemptions state statutes may have, this section reviews some affirmative protection available, such as state humane slaughter acts. States also may have statutory provisions specific to certain practices or products that may impact the rearing or slaughter of farmed animals.
- Only a few states, including California and New York, have anti-cruelty laws that appear to apply to farmed animals. § 599b (defining “animal” to include “every dumb creature”); N.Y. A § 350 (defining “animal” as “every living creature except a human being”). However, enforcement of anti-cruelty laws for farmed animals in those states, as in other states, generally is limited to provisions regarding adequate food and water.
- The Twenty-Eight Hour Law, 49 U.S.C. § 80502, initially enacted in 1873 and more recently amended in 1994, provides that individuals may not transport animals for more than twenty-eight consecutive hours without unloading them for feeding, and giving them access to water and rest. Transport systems that provide animals with food, water, and an opportunity for rest are not subject to the law. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture interpreted this law to apply to transport by truck, but not to include poultry within the definition of livestock animals.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Criminal Law 156 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Using Special Masters to Advance the Goals of Animal Protection Laws
- Animal cruelty investigations resemble investigations of crimes against humans, but they differ in certain key aspects due to animals’ inability to recount events and sometimes due to vague or outdated statutory provisions. Particularly in cases of extreme abuse, an animal cruelty investigation can be very comprehensive, involving DNA testing, documenting the crime scene, performing necropsies on deceased animals to determine the causes of death, and other investigatory techniques commonly used by investigators in crimes against humans. These investigative steps are especially important in animal abuse cases because the animal victim, even if alive, cannot describe the abuse. Animal cruelty investigations are likely to involve experts such as veterinarians and pathologists. Veterinarians are particularly important as they , how much a healthy animal should weigh, how long this animal likely went without proper sustenance to reach the current weight, and so on). The investigation is...
- Animal Protection Laws of the United States & Canada
- However, many states have enacted sentencing laws limiting the number of punishable offenses for the same conduct occurring within one criminal episode to the number of individual victims. . § 161.067(3). In those states that consider animal cruelty to be a crime against the state, defendants may argue that there is only one victim, the state, and thus, the defendant may be penalized only once for the offending conduct, regardless of the number of animals injured. Prosecutors, in turn, may counter that animals constitute victims for anti-merger purposes, relying on applicable rules of construction, legislative history, and relevant statutes, such as those indicating the primary focus of modern anti-cruelty laws is the wellbeing of individual animals, rather than protection of their owners or the general public. , 345 P.3d 416 (Or. 2015) (reversing merger of twenty counts of animal neglect on the grounds that “the underlying substantive criminal statute ... protects individual
- Depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances of a particular case, in addition to the prosecutor, there may be a variety of police officers, humane investigators, animal control officers, veterinarians, wildlife rehabilitators, or other experts involved in investigating and prosecuting an animal cruelty case. These officers and professionals can also advise a private individual on the appropriate method for reporting animal abuse in a particular jurisdiction. Often, animal advocacy organizations, such as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, are instrumental in assisting law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of a case. In particularly egregious cases, media outlets can bring the appropriate officials’ attention to the situation. In most jurisdictions, however, it is best for an individual with information regarding a possible animal abuse case to report it to local police, animal control, or the local humane society shelter or organization.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. International Animal Law 67 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Nevertheless, China hosts an incipient interest in animal protection. Unlike the United States, however, China’s initial national animal protection efforts have not resulted in general anti-cruelty laws to prevent companion animal abuse. Chinese animal advocates submitted a draft animal protection law to the National People’s Congress in 2011, but the Chinese Congress so far has taken no action. For background on this proposed law, see Amanda Whitfort,
- Globalization and Animal Law: Comparative Law, International Law and International Trade
- The EU substantially affects the global market for animal products, presently leading the way for higher animal welfare standards in many areas. While its laws and regulations relating to animals are far from perfect, and animal advocates strive to improve them, the EU is at the international forefront of animal protection.
- Many countries around the world have laws that pertain to animals. Given an increasingly global economy, countries also come together in agreements to, for example, manage wildlife populations and decide how to govern trade, including trade in animal-based products. This chapter will provide an introduction to comparative animal law through discussion of legislation relating to animals in China and the European Union—which both have significant global influence—and discuss selected international agreements that affect animals.
- International Issues in Animal Law: The Impact of International Environmental and Economic Law upon Animal Interests and Advocacy
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Selected Federal Wildlife Laws 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Lacey Act applies to “fish and wildlife” which it defines as including any wild animal, dead or alive. 16 U.S.C. § 3371(a). This law has a very broad definition of “wild animal” that includes even undomesticated animals bred in captivity. Congress’s inclusion of animals bred in captivity comports with its stated aim of addressing the market for poached animals and not merely the act of poaching, because as long as there is a market for animals commonly found in the wild, it is reasonable to conclude that poaching will continue. Additionally, the Lacey Act includes as “animals” invertebrates, birds, reptiles, and other species not included in the definition of “animal” in other state and federal laws (For more on the legal definition of “animal,” see Chapter 2.)
- As you have seen in other chapters, many of the laws and regulations relating to animals are found at the state level. For example, states generally are responsible for regulating domestic, farmed, and wild animals. Nevertheless, there also are a substantial number of federal laws relating to animals, and particularly to wildlife. This chapter briefly outlines and presents case law arising from a few of the major federal statutes that commonly impact the actions of individuals, organizations, and companies in relation to wild animals: the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Wild Horses and Burros Act, Lacey Act, Animal Damage Control Act, and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. The table below provides a brief overview of selected federal laws that protect wild animals. For a comprehensive list of federal animal law statutes, see CRS R
- The Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 41–47, was originally passed in 1900 to reduce the wholesale slaughter of wild animals for commercial purposes. , 929 F. Supp. 502 (D. Mass. 1996). This law has three main provisions: (1) it forbids the willful disturbance of animals or their nests, as well as the killing of any animal within an area set aside under any law; (2) it forbids the importation of specific species; and (3) it prohibits the use of aircraft, motor vehicles, and poison to kill wild horses and burros. The Lacey Act was substantially amended in 1981 to address wildlife trafficking. Its amendments, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378, make violating state hunting laws and crossing state or national boundaries for that purpose a federal offense. Congress intended the Lacey Act to gradually “dry up” the market for poached animals.
- If the agency approves adoption of certain animals, it must ensure the animals will not be commercially exploited. The WHBA allows qualified individuals to adopt animals only if they can assure humane treatment and care. When title is transferred, the animals lose their status as “free-roaming” under the WHBA. In a suit to enjoin the adoptions of animals for slaughter or exploitation, a court held that if an agency is aware of the intention to commercially exploit the animals after adoption, the agency has a duty to deny adoption. If adoption is not possible, the agency must humanely destroy excess animals and cannot delegate that obligation to others through placement with unqualified persons through the adoption program.
- While a number of case names in ESA litigation begin with the name of the listed or potentially listed species, the Ninth Circuit has held that the ESA does not confer standing on animals, based on the rationale that the ESA’s citizen suit provision refers specifically to “persons,” which the court interpreted as not including animals. The Ninth Circuit concluded that congressional statutory conferral of standing on animals would be extraordinary, and Congress thus would need to do so explicitly. was viewed as a loss by many animal protectionists, the Ninth Circuit did note that nothing in Article III of the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from creating standing for animals if it chooses to do so. For more on the issue of standing for animals and standing doctrine generally, see Chapter 9.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Wills and Trusts 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Traditionally, the property status of animals precluded them from being beneficiaries upon their owner’s death. However, owners are now increasingly able to provide for their animals using trust or probate provisions. In construing such provisions, many of the traditional requirements, restrictions, and interpretive canons found in will and trust law remain applicable. Commonly regulated or litigated issues surrounding wills and trusts to benefit animals include the eligibility of an animal to be a beneficiary, the disposition of the animal or animals immediately after the testator’s or trustor’s death, life expectancy and state law regarding duration of benefits, the amount necessary to provide for the life span of the animal, and the enforceability of the provisions under state statutory and case law. Custody disputes can arise in probate and are generally treated analogously to custody disputes in other contexts; see Chapter 6 for more on custody disputes.
- One court, when faced with a will provision leaving property directly to an animal, found that because an animal could not be a beneficiary; the gift was void. Because the gift was void, the property passed according to intestacy laws. , 444 P.2d 353 (Cal. 1968). In response to such rulings, some states’ enactments of animal trust statutes now allow owners to provide for their animals without naming them as direct beneficiaries.
- Pet Animals: What Happens when their Humans Die?,
- (a) A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor’s lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.
- (1) Eligible Animals: The trust must designate the animal beneficiaries. An animal may need to be a “pet” or “domestic” animal, as under the New York, California, and Oklahoma statutes. Such requirements may limit the types of animals eligible to be beneficiaries. For more on the definitions of such terms outside the context of probate statutes, see Chapter 2. In contrast to the limitations in those states, Washington allows trustors to designate any nonhuman vertebrate animal in a trust instrument. Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Texas all require the animal to be alive at the trustor’s death.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Hunting laws and regulations apply to wild animals and generally not to captive game animals. In a case involving domesticated deer, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the deer were not subject to state hunting laws. The court held that wild animals belong to the state unless they are kept captive, in which case the individual who keeps the animals has a qualified property right in them that is lost if the animals return to their wild state.
- • Stephen K. Otto & Animal Legal Def. Fund, A http://aldf.org/resources/advocating-for-animals/animal-protection-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-canada/ (compiling state animal protection laws into a single compendium).
- Federal laws apply if an activity takes place on federal property, or if the animal involved is protected by a federal statute, such as the Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For more on federal laws affecting animals, see Chapter 10.
- In addition to state regulations regarding hunting, trapping and fishing, certain federal statutes protecting wild animals impose additional limitations and requirements. (Selected federal statutes protecting wild animals are discussed in Chapter 10.) In a case analyzing the permitting requirements under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, a court rejected a defendant’s claim that these Acts violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the defendant was not a member of a recognized Native American tribe or religion. Under the MBTA, Native Americans can possess and trade animals (or elements of animals, such as feathers) without a permit, but because the defendant was not a Native American, he was required to comply with the federal permitting requirements. ...687 (M.D. Tenn. 2006). Federal laws prohibit certain hunting and fishing practices as well. For example, the Airborne Hunting Act makes it illegal to shoot or harass...
- The strict liability nature of license and tagging requirements can work against people who protest hunting—if they do not have a license or tags they cannot legally possess wild animals. Because the definition of “take” encompasses more than killing or physical possession of an animal, protesters may be charged with hunting without a license if they harass, pursue, rescue (even a wounded animal), or otherwise interfere with animals.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Defining “Animal” 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Dogs and cats are perhaps the quintessential companion animals, and sometimes are called “domestic” animals. Yet this was not always the case. Historically, “domestic” animals were generally farm and working animals and were recognized as having “intrinsic” value under common law. For example, in , 188 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1963), the anti-cruelty statute at issue defined “domestic animal” to mean “any equine animal, bovine animal, sheep, goat and pig.” The court refused to expand it to include cats, relying on common law to conclude that the omission of cats from the definition was not an oversight because cats had no intrinsic value. For more on the intrinsic value of companion animals, see Chapter 4. Years later, another court applied what it viewed as a “practical interpretation” of similar language to conclude that because a dog is “commonly characterized as a domestic animal,” dogs were within the scope of a criminal statute that ...dog has injured “a domestic animal”...
- The question of whether an animal is categorized as companion, domestic, wild, exotic, livestock, or domesticated animal under a given statute is often the subject of judicial interpretation, given that the terms can overlap and be quite confusing, as different state statutes use different terms to refer to the same species of animal. Likewise, within a state and depending on the context, the same animal can be defined differently under different laws. For example, a pig or a horse may be a companion animal under anti-cruelty provisions, but also livestock under provisions regulating agribusiness. Also, state legislatures may re-classify animals so that new statutory schemes apply to certain categories of animals. For example, in Missouri, ostriches were re-classified under state statute from exotic animals to livestock or farm animals. ...S.W.2d 646 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). If a statute does not contain an express definition for a species of animal, courts may analogize the traits...
- Whenever animals are determined to be livestock, they receive much less protection in the form of criminal anti-cruelty statutes and other animal protection laws, and generally are regulated separately by the state, as discussed in Chapter 11. Farmed animals are often the subject of civil suits regarding contracts for purchase, veterinary malpractice, and product liability.
- Although it may seem obvious or intuitive, whether a particular being is considered an “animal” under the law is not always clear. As a starting point when analyzing any statute or case, it is important to determine how “animal” is defined within the relevant context.
- State statutes that impact animals often, though not always, define the “animals” they intend to encompass. However, this term may not be used uniformly, because different definitions of “animal” may apply under separate sections of the same statutory scheme. In some instances, the definition of “animal” may be sufficiently vague that judicial interpretation is required. This is particularly common with respect to state anti-cruelty statutes. Whether a being is an “animal” under a given statute often determines what level of protection that being is afforded.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Animal Activism 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Some form of ag-gag statutes have been proposed in a number of states, most often failing to be enacted into law. At the time of publication, eight states currently have ag-gag laws in force: Iowa (I . §§ 47–1825–1828) (the “Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act” prohibits non-consented recording at animal facilities when accompanied by intent to deprive an animal owner of the animal and damage an animal enterprise connected with the facility); Missouri (M . §§ 578.013, 578.405–412) (requiring employees who record animal abuse to give the recordings to law enforcement within twenty four hours; prohibiting access to animal agribusiness or research facilities via misrepresentation); Montana (M . § 81–30) (the “Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act” prohibits non-consented recording at such facilities when accompanied by intent to damage and “commit criminal defamation”); North Carolina (N.C. G ...action is not specific to animal facilities); North...
- An increase in activism and direct action, particularly with respect to farmed animals, research, and hunting, has resulted in the enactment of some statutes targeting the behavior of animal rights activists. Litigation and controversy in this area commonly focus on state and federal constitutional protections, hunter harassment statutes, SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits and legislation, claims of animal terrorism (based on the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and its successor, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), and allegations of criminal behavior, including vandalism and the illegal release of animals from farm or research facilities. This chapter provides a brief survey of the protections afforded to activists generally, and the way in which those protections are specifically limited by hunter harassment laws and federal and state laws regulating speech and protecting animal industries. The chapter closes with some defense claims for activists and...
- Framed by their proponents as measures to protect the commercial interests of those who use animals in agriculture and research, and decried by their opponents as an attempt to silence (or “gag”—hence the colloquial term “ag-gag” laws) whistleblowing and stifle public debate regarding farmed animal conditions, ag-gag laws criminalize certain behavior using some combination of three statutory strategies. Statutes focused on covert documentation of conditions at animal agribusiness facilities bar recording images or sound at such facilities without the owners’ consent. § 12.1–21.1–02. Ag-gag laws that enable these facilities to more easily avoid hiring undercover reporters or animal activists prohibit agricultural job applicants from misrepresenting themselves while seeking employment. See, § 717A.3A(1)(b). A third category of ag-gag laws imposes rapid reporting requirements on those who observe animal cruelty at an agribusiness or research facility, which in turn undercuts the...
- Animal advocates, reporters, and activists have challenged ag-gag laws on free speech and equal protection grounds in four of the eight states where they exist. In 2015, a court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that Idaho’s ag-gag statute (which “create[d] the new crime [of] ‘interference with agricultural production’ ”) violated the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Analyzing the statute’s prohibitions on covert recording and obtaining employment at agribusiness facilities via misrepresentation, the ...speech and constituted a content-based speech regulation incapable of surviving strict scrutiny review. The court also determined that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause by its discriminatory treatment of the fundamental right to free speech and “was animated by an improper animus toward animal welfare groups and other undercover investigators in the agricultural industry, and ... furthers no other legitimate or...
- State anti-SLAPP laws can provide not only protection for activists, but also compensation for their legal and attorney fees in defending against meritless lawsuits. For example, in
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Remedies for Harm Done to Animals 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Remedies in cases arising out of tortious harm to companion animals are complicated for many of the same reasons described in tort law. (See Chapter 4.) First and foremost, the property status of animals under the law greatly influences the remedies available for harm done to them. As a preliminary matter, because of this property status, remedies do not flow directly to the actual victim of the tortious conduct—the animals themselves. Instead, the remedies flow to the human owners or caregivers. Second, the type of animals harmed also is critical in determining appropriate and available remedies. Unlike animals maintained for commercial uses (where a market value for a harmed animal is likely to be more readily ascertainable), companion animals often are perceived and treated as family members by their owners or caretakers—to the point where many individuals view themselves as their companion animals’ guardian or “parent” and not as an owner.
- In the absence of legislation and statutory authority in a given jurisdiction, emotional distress damages generally are not available for negligent harm to animals due to common law precedent that such damages are not available in property damage cases and the fact that animals currently remain as “property” under the law.
- Part of the financial loss suffered by plaintiff owners or caretakers of harmed companion animals is the value of the animals themselves. A more difficult concept than assessing veterinary bills or other expenses incurred as a result of the tortious act, or perhaps a simple concept with complex application, is how to value companion animals who have been killed by tortious conduct. While animals maintained for commercial uses (such as farmed animals) obviously may be harmed as well by tortious acts, valuation of those animals within the legal system is generally a much simpler and more straightforward process of determining fair market value than the valuation of a companion animal. This is especially true of a companion animal who is a mixed breed, rescued, or adopted from a shelter for companionship, rather than a purebred, purchased for breeding or show. In the valuation of companion animals, some courts have considered the “intrinsic” or “special” value the animal had to
- In cases where animal advocacy organizations and individuals are seeking to protect wild animals (who are the property of the state) or animals owned for commercial purposes, injunctive relief obtained by the human plaintiffs can result in redress that directly impacts the animals themselves. Federal statutes (discussed further in Chapter 10) may provide the basis for such injunctive relief and other remedies as well.
- Fair market value for property traditionally has been measured by the value of like goods. The fair market method of valuation has a long history. Its application in cases involving animals relies heavily on the property status of animals, rather than consideration of what will appropriately compensate the plaintiff. Historically, with the development of tax assessment rolls, market value for animals became limited to those animals listed. If an animal was not listed, the court would decline to assign any value for the animal’s injury or loss. , 166 U.S. 698 (1897). Presently, courts valuing animals based on their fair market value look to other factors such as purchase price, sale price, breeding, special training, and any medical conditions the animal may have.
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 2 results
- We would also like to thank those who have supported us in this project from the very beginning and without whom it might not have been completed. We are sincerely grateful to former Dean Robert Klonoff for his support of this work and that of the Center for Animal Law Studies at the Lewis & Clark Law School. Additionally, it is not possible to engage in serious animal law work without owing a large debt of gratitude to Joyce Tischler, whose foundational work has created a path for so many to follow, and whose continued dedication and gracious assistance to so many of us inures to the growth of the field of animal law as well as to the benefit of the animals on whose behalf we work.
- This second edition would not have been possible without the extraordinary research and writing talents of animal law attorneys and Animal Law LL.M. candidates Aurora Paulsen and David Rosengard. Aurora and David worked with the authors to review and edit every chapter and were the principal authors for the new International and Activism chapters, respectively. Their many comments, edits, and insights are a great contribution to this second edition of the Nutshell, from which we hope many people and animals will benefit.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Torts 68 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Indirect tort claims such as malpractice or loss of companionship may recognize that injury to an animal causes injury to humans who are close to the animal. Because Congress and the states have not granted express standing to animals, the court’s standing requirements limit human plaintiffs to these indirect tort claims for compensation for torts committed against animals. Some states have other options. North Carolina allows citizens to file civil actions for violations of criminal animal cruelty laws. Oregon allows citizens to file a nuisance abatement suit where animal crimes are alleged. For more on barriers to standing for animals (generally outside the content of tort claims) and methods used to overcome them, see Chapters 9 and 10.
- While the property status of animals under the law may impede the success of some of the claims discussed above, there are common law torts available to plaintiffs that are based on the status of animals as property under the law. These property-based torts include replevin, conversion, and trespass to chattel, in addition to statutory provisions that may permit a civil action for damages for otherwise criminal conduct. Some plaintiffs may choose not to include claims based on the legal status of their companion animal as property, finding the notion that their beloved companion animal is treated as property under the law offensive to their sensibilities. Strategically, however, if such claims are available under the facts of a given case, they may be useful tools in obtaining recovery and they may also be utilized by creative counsel as a means of raising the court’s awareness regarding animals as much more than mere inanimate property. One advantage to intentional torts such as...
- Claims arising out of tortious harm to animals (often, though not always, companion animals) is an emerging and rapidly growing area of the law, yet it remains deeply rooted in historic common law and in some instances tied to statutes applicable to humans. The status of animals as property under the law weighs heavily into the causes of action that may be asserted and the nature and extent of damages that may be awarded. The fact that this particular form of “property” consists of animate beings—who in many instances are loved as family members, though not recognized as such under the law—raises its own unique set of issues in this area of the law.
- The common law rule for harm caused by companion animals was that owners or possessors of the animals would not be liable unless they knew of the animals’ vicious propensities abnormal to that class of animal. Some states have codified the common law standard by statute or modified it to varying degrees. For example, in , 727 P.2d 1131 (Haw. Ct. App. 1986), the court considered a statute that eliminated the necessity to prove “scienter” as an element of an animal owner’s negligence and imposed strict liability “only on an owner of an animal that is ‘known by its species or nature to be dangerous, wild or vicious.’ ” The court noted that, according to the legislative history, strict liability would not be imposed on dog owners “because dogs are not dangerous, wild or vicious by species or nature.” Chapter 7 (regarding laws designating certain breeds of dog as dangerous or vicious).
- Strict liability is a longstanding common law doctrine that originally applied to harm caused by wild animals and by free-roaming livestock, under the presumption that anyone who possessed wild animals (for circuses and roadside zoos, for example) or livestock who roamed freely should have known of the animals’ natural tendencies. Whether this was actually a strict liability standard or an implied negligence standard has been debated by courts and commentators.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Animals in Research 76 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Animal Research in Medical Sciences: Seeking a Convergence of Science, Medicine, and Animal Law
- Similarly, where animal advocates sought access to information about the sources for dogs and cats at a university hospital researching on those animals, New York’s highest court held that the hospital was a state “agency” and thus that the records were subject to disclosure under the state’s public records law, even though the records were maintained pursuant to the AWA.
- Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals: The Case for Chimpanzees and Bonobos
- Private and publicly funded research facilities commonly use animals both as subjects in experiments and as objects of experimentation that can be patentable property. In either case, facilities, animal dealers, and exhibitors must comply with federal and state regulations that affect the acquisition, care, and fate of the animals. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131–2159, is the principal source of regulation for animals used in research or for exhibition. Other federal statutes also may affect research, depending on the animal involved. For example, if the animal is an endangered species or a marine mammal, the Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act may be implicated. For more on these statutes, see Chapter 10. Interactions between researchers, animal advocates, and activists have been the subject of restrictive legislation, such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which are discussed in Chapter 14.
- facilities, and exhibitors) of warm-blooded animals intended for research, experimentation, testing, teaching, exhibition, or as pets. 9 C.F.R. § 1.1. However, USDA regulations exclude non-vertebrate animals; animals used for breeding purposes; agricultural animals; and birds, aquatic animals, rats, mice, and some other animals bred for research. The exclusion of birds, rats, and mice bred for research was originally embodied in a USDA regulation, and is significant because those animals constitute an estimated ninety-five percent of animals used in research. In a case challenging that regulation, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the claim because it dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court concluded that past and future research interests were insufficient to confer standing, and that the plaintiffs were merely suing to enforce the AWA. The court additionally rejected claims of informational standing and held that the plaintiffs were not in...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Standing 32 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Jurisdictions with statutes treating animal abuse or neglect as abatable public nuisances offer an alternative mechanism by which to address animal cruelty via a private right of action. Growing out of common law nuisance doctrine, nuisance abatement laws regulate activities that tend to negatively impact the surrounding community’s quality of life—often explicitly including illegal gambling, illegal prostitution, and illegal drug manufacturing or dealing. These statutes authorize various people—typically government attorneys and members of the impacted community, though sometimes extending to any person—to bring a civil action enjoining the nuisance. Generally, whether animal cruelty falls within a state’s range of abatable public nuisances will depend on the facts of the animal cruelty incident in question, and the language used in the state’s abatement statute. ...scope of abatable nuisances; this is particularly useful in animal fighting cases). Oregon, which explicitly...
- Animals do not have standing to sue, at least in part because they are deemed property under the law. They cannot speak for themselves both literally (with the rare exception of some birds, and nonhuman primates able to communicate by sign language) and figuratively. Individuals or organizations may be able to sue on behalf of animals if they have a special interest in the animal, if that interest gives rise to an injury unique to the individuals or organizations, if such unique injury results from an injury to the animal in question, and if they meet the applicable standing requirements discussed in the preceding section. Even then, the individuals or organizations would be invoking their own legal rights and not those of the animal.
- In some cases, those advocating for animals may name the animal or animals as additional plaintiffs. In those relatively few cases where courts have analyzed whether animal plaintiffs have standing, however, the courts have determined they do not. For example, the plaintiffs in one case challenged the transfer of Kama the dolphin from an aquarium to the Navy. Kama was named as one of the plaintiffs. The federal district court looked at the word “person” as used in statutory provisions outlining cognizable claims under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act (both discussed in more detail in Chapter 10) and determined that, without express authorization from Congress, the word “person” did not include animals. Additionally, the court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 17(c), authorizing suits on behalf of children or incompetent persons, did not apply to animals. The court also looked to FRCP 17(b), which required that the capacity to sue be...
- Animal law, as an interdisciplinary field, encompasses a number of constitutional questions. Many of these are addressed in the chapters in which the questions arise. For example, procedural due process requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment are discussed in Chapter 7 (State and Local Regulation of Animal Ownership, section II). Fifth Amendment due process and Fourth Amendment search and seizure protections are discussed in Chapter 3 (Criminal Law, section VI). First Amendment free speech rights are discussed in Chapter 14 (Animal Activism, section II). Constitutional challenges such as overbreadth and vagueness, as well as Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause challenges, arise in many chapters throughout the text.
- Congress and individual states have the ability to grant standing to animals. An animal’s communicative barriers, difficulty comprehending the legal process, and property status are attributes present to varying degrees in other entities who are entitled to forms of standing: “artificial persons such , 386 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004) Congress could amend the FRCP, the MMPA, the ESA, and other statutes so the term “person” includes animals. States could amend their laws to define animals as entities or beings with a right to sue. Without such amendments, however, courts are unlikely to recognize standing for animals themselves.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. State and Local Regulation of Animal Ownership 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Modern anti-cruelty laws are perhaps the most obvious and pervasive example of state governments limiting owners’ actions to protect the owners’ own property (the animals) from the owners themselves. Other common examples of government restrictions on animal ownership, in addition to those referenced above, include prohibitions on cosmetic surgeries, such as tail docking and ear cropping; limitations on the numbers of animals allowed to reside in a home absent a license; requirements to have vaccinations against rabies and other transmittable diseases; and restrictions on future ownership of animals by individuals who have been convicted of animal abuse. Although these restrictions operate as limitations on personal property rights, generally
- As a general matter, an increasing number of laws and regulations control what individuals can and cannot do to and with their animals. This movement toward more public acceptance of additional state limitations on animal ownership is steadily gaining momentum, and is rather unusual when compared to typically negative public reactions to limitations on other forms of property ownership.
- Police powers, however, are not unlimited. State or federal constitutions’ due process, commerce, and equal protection clauses all act as checks on overly aggressive uses of police powers. This protection against improper governmental intrusion impacts animal ownership just as it does other areas of individual rights and protections. In addition to possible constitutional limitations, state laws cannot be inconsistent with federal laws, although they may provide for stricter standards. , 39 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 1994) (in a challenge to an ordinance forbidding the keeping of wild animals, the court held that the federal Animal Welfare Act did not preempt stricter state regulations).
- Public nuisances in animal law cases may arise in a number of contexts, such as a neighbor with potentially dangerous exotic animals or an industrial farm that has hundreds or thousands of farmed animals. (These are also known as “factory farms” and are discussed in more detail in Chapter 11.) For example, large hog operations generate a substantial amount of waste that must be managed. If not properly managed, serious and potentially harmful air and water pollution often result and can detrimentally impact surrounding communities in numerous ways. So-called “Right to Farm” laws have been passed to combat claims that focus on the effects of farming practices. “Right to Farm” laws are intended to discourage nuisance claims by creating a statutory presumption (albeit a rebuttable one) that whatever nuisance is created by the operation is outweighed by the public value in having working farms in the community.
- As property, animals are subject to many of the basic laws of personal property with which the reader is likely familiar. In , 535 U.S. 274 (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court described the various individual rights comprising property ownership according to the classic “bundle of sticks” metaphor. Property ownership commonly includes the rights to possess, use, manage, collect income, consume, destroy, modify, alienate, and exclude. In the case of animal ownership, many of these rights commonly are limited by governmental interests in preserving public morals; protecting public health, safety, and welfare; and protecting the economic value of property. Further, governments may limit individual rights for an additional reason unique to animal ownership—because of concern for the wellbeing of the property itself.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Contracts 50 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Animals often come between tenants and their landlords in the context of lease violations. A lease may prohibit or limit the type, breed, or number of animals a tenant may keep. In construing these lease provisions, federal and state laws, as well as general rules of contract construction, govern the court’s analysis. This section touches on common lease restrictions and potential defenses tenants may raise. For instance, a tenant may seek to classify her animal as a service animal, requiring a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213) or under state or federal Fair Housing Acts (FHAs); a tenant may also argue selective enforcement of the restriction, or waiver and ...disputes of this nature, states or local governments may also address some of these claims and defenses by statute or ordinance. This section explores some of these jurisdictional differences in the context of the commonly litigated issues surrounding animals in...
- . § 158.095(5). Some courts are willing to impose liability on a landlord even in cases where the tenant is violating a term of the lease. In a case involving a ferret kept in violation of the ferret owners’ lease, a federal court in Pennsylvania held the landlord liable for injuries caused by the animal based on the court’s determination that ferrets are wild animals. The court considered the definition of a “wild animal” in the state’s Game and Wildlife Code, finding that ferrets—unlike dogs and cats—were not treated as domestic animals in other statutes, and that the behavior of ferrets generally is consistent with that of a wild animal, regardless of how any particular ferret might behave. Keeping a wild animal gives rise to potential liability. Pennsylvania extends that liability to landlords who have both knowledge of the animal’s presence and the authority to evict her owners. The court, therefore, held the landlord liable for knowing of the ferret and failing to act.
- The reader may note the absence of discussion regarding contracts for the sale of animals. Historically, animals are treated as commodities in purchase/sale contracts and much of the litigation surrounding such contracts does not center on the welfare of the animals. Thus, a discussion of contracts for the sale of animals is outside the scope of this book. Bailment contracts, however, do deal directly with the welfare of the animal involved and, as such, are discussed herein, in Chapter 4, section VI.
- The property status of animals under the law does not change under the “best interest” standard. Courts applying this standard simply are taking a real world approach to the issue in considering the animal’s best interest, much like in custody disputes involving children. For example, courts have applied the child custody concepts of managing conservators and visitation rights to animal custody cases. A court in a Texas divorce case upheld the trial court’s designation of the wife as the managing conservator of the couple’s dog, with reasonable visitation for the husband. In doing so, the court noted the property status of animals and the fact that the dog had been given to the wife as a gift. , 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981). For another example of a court analogizing to child custody disputes in considering the custody of an animal, see
- Consistent with the legal status of animals as property, courts generally treat animals in contractual disputes as property, with some important qualifications. Contractual disputes involving animals generally relate to custody disputes in marital or other relationships, housing, and insurance issues. In light of the unique nature of animals as property, courts perhaps are more willing to grant specific performance or other equitable remedies that may not be available in contractual disputes involving inanimate property. For more on the court’s consideration of the value of animals in the context of damages and remedies, see Chapter 5. This chapter will survey the types of claims that arise out of contracts, and commonly disputed issues within those claims, to consider the ways in which courts construe contracts affecting animals and their caregivers.
- Open Chapter
Index 99 results (showing 5 best matches)
- See Animal Welfare Act (animal fighting provisions); Cock Fighting; Cruelty (animal fighting); Dog Fighting
- CHINA (Animal Laws in),
- EUROPEAN UNION (Animal Laws in),
- ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION ACT (AEPA)/ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT (AETA),
- As “animals” or domestic or wild animals, 7, 14, 415
- Open Chapter
Outline 54 results (showing 5 best matches)
Halftitle Page 1 result
Table of Cases 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Allen v. Pennsylvania Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ........................................................................ 339
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc......................................... 261
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus ... 260
- Animal Legal Def. Fund Boston v. Provimi Veal Corp......................................................271, 346, 348, 378
- Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Espy ...................... 261, 388
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Distinguished University Professor, Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: June 10th, 2016
- ISBN: 9781634602792
- Subject: Animal Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: Topics include animal anti-cruelty laws, industrial and agricultural uses of animals, torts and other claims for harm done to animals, as well as federal, state and local regulation of animal ownership and use, animal rights activism, hunting, fishing and other recreational uses of animals, animals in entertainment, issues arising when animals are the subject of a contract or the intended beneficiary of a will or trust, remedies for harm done to animals, international animal law, and anticipated future legal developments in the field.