Dogs Law in Connecticut

· Commercial kennel means a kennel maintained for boarding or grooming dogs or cats, and includes, but is not limited to, any veterinary hospital which boards or grooms dogs or cats for nonmedical purposes;

· Grooming facility means any place, other than a commercial kennel, which is maintained as a business where dogs are groomed;

· Keeper means any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog;

· Kennel means one pack or collection of dogs which are kept under one ownership at a single location and are bred for show, sport or sale;

· Municipal Animal Control Officer means any such officer appointed under the provisions of 22-331;

· Pet Shop means any place at which animals not born and raised on the premises are kept for the purpose of sale to the public;

· Training Facility means any place, other than a commercial kennel or grooming facility, which is maintained as a business where dogs are trained.

STATUTES:

Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007)

Chapter 248 Vehicle Highway Use

§14-226. Transport of dogs in pick-up trucks. Restrictions.

Chapter 435. Dogs And Other Companion Animals

§ 22-332. Impoundment and disposition of roaming, injured or mistreated animals.

§ 22-333. Redemption of impounded dog, cat or other animal.

§ 22-338. Licensing of dogs. Fees. Penalties. Rabies certificate.

§ 22-339b Rabies vaccination required for dogs and cats.

§ 22-340 Town Clerk to provide licenses and tags.

§ 22-341 Tag or plate to be attached to dog collar or harness.

§ 22-344b Pet shop required to have dogs and cats examined by veterinarian. Replacement or refund.

§ 22-345 License and tag for guide dogs for blind, deaf or mobility impaired persons.

§ 22-349 Unlicensed dogs. Regulations. Impoundment.

§ 22-350 Dogs as personal property. Tax Exemption. Theft.

REGULATIONS:

REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES

Title 22 Agriculture, Domestic Animals

§22-336-14 Dog Pounds – Impoundment requirements

§22-336-27 Quarantined dogs

§22-344-20a Animal health

§22-344-21a Prohibited sales

§22-380m-2 Animal population control program: payment required for adoption of unspayed or unneutered dogs.

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

ANIMALS

#1.5 Animals as Property; Status.

(4) Dogs.

#2.5 Licensing.

#3.5 Regulation in general.

#51 Impounding animals at large.

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

Enforcement of Restrictive Covenant or Lease Provision

Limiting the Keeping of Animals or Pets on Residential Property,

93 AM JUR TRIALS 193 (2004).

l. Introduction and legal background

ll. Enforcement of covenants restricting

keeping of animals or pets

lll. Enforcement of lease provision

restricting keeping of animals or pets

lV. Remedies for breach of pet restrictions

V. Case intake and pleadings

Vl. Discovery

Vll. Trial

LAW REVIEWS & ARTICLES

J. Porter, “It Can Be a Regular Dog Fight; Family Pets Involved In A Growing Number of Custody Cases” Hartford Courant , July 10, 2006

COMPILER:

Mary Ann Zieminski, Paralegal Intern, Connecticut Judicial Department Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343-6560. Email

Section 2 Cruelty to Dogs

In Connecticut

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:	Bibliographic resources relating to cruelty to dogs in Connecticut.
SEE ALSO:	· § 1. Control of Dogs · § 3. Dog Injuries
STATUTES:	Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) · Chapter 435. Dogs And Other Companion Animals § 22-329. Prevention of cruelty to dogs and other animals. § 22-332. Impoundment and disposition of roaming, injured or mistreated animals. § 22-350a Tethering and confining dog for unreasonable period of time. § 22-351 Theft, killing or injuring of companion animal. Penalty.
WEST KEY NUMBERS:	· ANIMALS # 43. Injuring or killing animals in general. # 44. Civil liability # 45. Criminal responsibility. # 52. Killing or injuring animals at large.
COMPILER:	Mary Ann Zieminski, Paralegal Intern, Connecticut Judicial Department Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343-6560. Email

Section 3 Dog Injuries

In Connecticut

A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to injuries caused or suffered by dogs.

SEE ALSO:

· § 1. Control of Dogs

· § 2. Cruelty to Dogs

DEFINITIONS:

Conn. Gen. Stats, § 22-327 (2007).

· Keeper means any person, other than the owner, harboring or having in his possession any dog;

STATUTES:

Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007)

Chapter 248. Vehicle Highway Use

§ 14-226 Operator to report injury to dog.

Chapter 435. Dogs And Other Companion Animals

§ 22-355 Damage by dogs to domestic animals.

§ 22-357 Damage to person or property.

§ 22-358 Killing of dogs doing damage. Quarantine…

§ 22-362 Annoyance by dogs on highway.

§ 22-363 Nuisance.

§ 22-364 Dogs roaming at large. Intentional or reckless subsequent violation.

§ 22-364a Intentional or reckless release of domestic animal which causes damage.

§ 22-364b Control of dogs in proximity to guide dogs.

FORMS:

· Joel M. Kaye and Wayne D. Effron, Connecticut

Practice Series, Civil Practice Forms (4th ed. 2004).

Torts Forms:

804.13 Injuries Caused by Dog

804.13-A Shooting Plaintiff’s Dog

S-60 Dogbite

S-87 Product Liability – Dog

S-121 Dogbite – Owner to Minor

S-122 Dogbite – Owner to Minor – Another Form

CASES:

· Virginia Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 94 Conn. App. 617, 894 A.2d 329 ( 2006 ), on appeal after remand, 278 Conn. 915 (2006).

Interpretation of the dog bite statute § 22-357 Damage to Person or Property. “The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained when she was attacked by a dog owned by S., an employee of the defendant church, who lived in an apartment in a parish house of the defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant as “keeper” of the dog pursuant to the statue (§ 22-357) that imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of any dog that does damage to the body or property of any person. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with a jury verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court, claiming inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied its motion to set aside the verdict.”

· Vincent v. Delgrego, CV030283384S, Superior Court

of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, at Meriden, May 20, 2005, Decided, May 20, 2005, Filed 2005 WL 1524634.“In support of his motion, the defendant argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because he was not the ‘owner or keeper’ of the dog in question. General Statutes § 22-357 imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of any dog that does damage to the body or property of any person. In order to prevail on a claim of strict liability under this statute, the plaintiff must plead and prove, inter alia, ‘that at the time the plaintiff suffered her complained-of injuries, the defendant, if he or she was not a minor, was an owner or keeper of the dog that caused such injuries’.” Simmons v. Welch, 48 Conn.Sup. 564,568, 854 A.2d114 (2003).

· Carrasquillo v. Carlson, 90 Conn.App.705, 880 A2d 904.

“In this negligence action, an automobile driver sued the owner of a dog for injuries he received when he took evasive action to avoid hitting the dog in a public roadway. The dog owner filed a motion for summary judgment in which she claimed that the driver had failed to raise a

material issue of disputed fact linking her conduct to the event that caused his injuries.”

· Demers v. Rosa, CV020173485S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, at Waterbury, May 3, 2006, Decided, May 3, 2006, Filed 2005 WL 1970977.

"Thus, the question for the court in this action is simply was it foreseeable to a reasonable person that by allowing a dog to roam, a reasonable responder could be injured as a result of the breach of that person's statutory duty and was the breach a substantial factor in the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.”

· State of Connecticut v. Frederick Acker, Appellate Court of Connecticut, 81 Conn. App. 141, 838 A.2d 1016 (2004).“The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, in a prosecution under General Statutes § 22-363, also known as our ‘nuisance dog’ statute, the state must prove the identity of the specific dog or dogs causing the nuisance. We hold that it does not and accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court”.

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

· ANIMALS

# 66.5 Dogs

# 66.5(1) Duties and liabilities in general

# 66.5(2), 82 Vicious propensities and knowledge thereof

# 66.5(3) Defenses in general.

# 66.5(4) Contributory and comparative negligence

# 66.5(5) Provocation

# 66.5(6) Assumption of Risk

# 66.5(7), 83 Person liable for injuries in general

# 66.5(8) Landlords

# 73, 84 Killing vicious animals

# 77 Injuries to other animals

# 79 Statutory regulations

# 80 Domestic animals in general

# 81 Dogs (Injuries caused by dog)

# 96 Injuring or killing trespassing animals

· AUTOMOBILES
#176(4) Dogs injured by motor vehicles

#178 Injuries to motor vehicles or occupants by collision with animals.

TEXTS & TREATISES:

· Douglass B. Wright et al., Connecticut Law of Torts, (3rd ed. 1991).

Chapter II. Intentional Torts

§ 21 Trespassing Animals

§ 24 Trespass of Personal Property

Chapter III. Negligence

§ 31 Nonfeasances – Negligent Omissions

Chapter XIV. Strict Liability

§ 126 Dogs

M. Randolph, J.D., Every Dog’s Legal Guide,

(5th ed. 2005).

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

Ward Miller, Annotation, Modern Status of Rule of Absolute or Strict Liability for Dog Bite, 51 ALR4th 446 (1987).
4 Am. Jur.2d Animals (1995)

§111 Liability imposed by statute

§112 – Persons liable; joint or several liability

3B C.J.S. Animals (2004)

§333 Statutory liability

§342 Contributory negligence; Assumption of risk

§346 Owner or keeper

§377 Damages – dog-bite injuries

        ●   Cause of Action Against Owner or Keeper of Domestic Animal To
             Recover for Personal Injuries Caused by Animal,
               14 COA 685 (1987).

§ 10. Statutory Liability

§ 28. Connecticut

§ 73. Sample Complaint

§ 74. Sample Answer

        ●    Plaintiff’s Negligence, Provocation, or Assumption Of Risk as Defense in
             Dogbite Case,
               39 AM JUR Proof of Facts 3d 133 (1996).

l. Background

ll. Model discovery

lll. Elements of proof

lV. Proof that Plaintiff provoked Defendant’s dog to attack

V. Bibliography

COMPILER:

Mary Ann Zieminski, Paralegal Intern, Connecticut Judicial Department Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343-6560. Email