Legal Expert Explores Canine-Related Liability and Unusual Cases
Legal expert Jonathan Turley has turned his attention to some of the most unusual cases involving pets, where animals caused significant damage and raised complex legal questions. His analysis focuses on recent incidents where dogs, under various circumstances, have caused serious harm, including the use of firearms, fires, and other dangerous behaviors. These cases have prompted a discussion on the legal boundaries of liability when it comes to animals, particularly in the context of strict liability and negligence.
Recent incidents highlight the absurdity of the situation. In Berks County, Pennsylvania, a 53-year-old man was cleaning his shotgun and briefly left it on his bed. His dog then jumped on the bed and shot his owner in the back. The police do not appear to be treating this as a possible attempted homicide. There is no effort to determine if this was a heat-of-passion crime due to the denial of belly rubs or chew toys.
On the other hand, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, the fire department’s assistant chief, David Sasser, reported that his dog, Colton, reportedly ‘counter surfed’ and found a lithium battery. He proceeded to chew on the battery and then placed it on the living room rug, sparking a fire. The fire department immediately posted a statement that ‘Colton is a good boy’ and excused his conduct. There was no suggestion that Colton was a canine arsonist.
Turley explores how these incidents challenge traditional tort law. In Pennsylvania, the state has a hybrid system. If someone is attacked or bitten by a dog, the owner is liable for all medical-related costs. However, for costs or damages other than medical expenses, you must still prove negligence. Notably, however, the rule applies not just to a bite but any attack, presumably including being gunned down by an armed canine.
In North Carolina, the state is a one-free-bite state. You are strictly liable for a known dangerous or vicious dog. Notably, however, the strict liability is for ‘any injuries or property damage’ and not just dog bites. Torching homes would appear to be within the statutory definition of dog-related damage.
Both of these most recent cases raise concerns over whether local police and fire officials are rolling over for these dogs. However, legally, they appear to be in the clear. Presumably, suspicions would be greater if these were cats. Feline offenses are treated as presumptively intentional.
Turley, an unabashed dog lover, is willing to serve as defense counsel for any accused canine, great or small. However, he recognizes the absurdity of the situation, much like Groucho Marx, who had the only iron-clad rule about dogs: ‘Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.’
These cases have sparked a broader conversation about the legal treatment of pets and the responsibilities of their owners. While these incidents may be unusual, they highlight the importance of understanding the legal framework that governs liability for animal-related incidents, even the most unexpected ones.