United States

Summary: This South Carolina law states that the owner of an animal boarding facility, at the end of an agreed upon term of boarding, shall have a lien upon any animal which is left for upkeep until the cost has been paid by the owner of the animal. The owner of the animal shall also be responsible for payment of the cost of care for the animal after notice of the lien. If the owner of the animal has not paid the cost after actual notice of the lien within ten days of such notice, the animal boarding facility owner may sell the animal after having advertised the time and place of the sale at least seven days before the sale is to be held.

Summary: These Florida laws concern liens for the care and maintenance of animals. The first section declares that the liens mentioned in the chapter include the described personal property under the circumstances mentioned in each section. Section 713.65 then describes that a lien exists in favor of all persons for the "feeding or caring for the horse or other animal of another, including all keepers of livery, sale or feed or feed stables, for feeding or taking care of any horse or other animal put in their charge; upon such horse or other animal." Based on the broad language of "other animal," a lien exists for the care and feeding of all owned animals.

Summary: These Colorado laws concern liens on pet animals for persons who are entrusted with caring for the animals. Under 38-20-102, any feeder, veterinarian, or other person entrusted with the pet for feeding, keeping, boarding, or medical shall have a lien for the amount of costs incurred in the care of the animal. Any contracts (or copies thereof) made by the owner of the pet animal with the person caring for the animals may be filed with the county clerk where the owner resides (or where the contract was made for non-residents). The filing of this contract constitutes notice to the contents of the contract and the legal effect of the filing.

Summary: This Kentucky law states that any licensed veterinarian who performs professional services for an animal, by contract with, or by the written consent of, the owner or authorized agent shall have a lien on the animal to secure the cost of the service provided. The priority for the liens filed under this law is based upon when the first lien was filed.

Summary: These California laws concern possessory liens for services, which includes veterinary proprietors and veterinary surgeons. Under Section 3051, a person who is in lawful possession of an article of person property and renders service or safekeeping to the owner has a lien on that property for compensation due. The section then specifically states that, ". . . veterinary proprietors and veterinary surgeons shall have a lien dependent on possession, for their compensation in caring for, boarding, feeding, and medical treatment of animals." The companion section states that the person holding the lien under Section 3051, if not paid the amount due within 10 days, may sell such property at public auction by giving at least 10 days notice.

Summary: These Nebraska laws provide the state's veterinary lien provisions, which concern only liens on livestock animals. Under Section 52-701, a licensed veterinarian who is contracted or hired to treat or in any way take care of any kind of livestock has a lien on that livestock for the reasonable value of services and medicines provided. This lien is treated as an agricultural lien under the UCC and may be enforced in the manner of other secured transactions in article 9 of the UCC. The lien must be perfected as provided under article 9 with the information outlined in this law.

Summary: These Minnesota statutes relate to agricultural liens on livestock. Under these sections, an “agricultural lien” includes a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production input lien, and feeder's lien. In section 514.966 entitled, "Agricultural lien on livestock," a licensed veterinarian performing emergency veterinary services in the ordinary course of business that cost more than $25 for animals at the request of the owner or a person in possession of the animals has a lien on the animals for the value of the services. Additionally, a veterinarian's lien, breeder's lien, livestock production input lien, temporary livestock production lien, or feeder's lien attaches to the livestock serviced by the agricultural lienholder, and products and proceeds thereof to the extent of the price or value of the service provided. To perfect the lien, a financing statement must be filed within the time periods established in the law.

Summary: Since 7 USCS § 2140 requires that exhibitors make their records identifying animals available for inspection at all reasonable times, it is not unreasonable to expect that records be with animals as they are transported

Summary: The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is the main regulatory vehicle that protects marine mammal species and their habitats in an effort to main sustainable populations. In doing so, the statute outlines prohibitions, required permits, criminal and civil penalties, and international aspects in addressing marine mammals. Included in the MMPA are provisions to protect dolphins from ocean vessels that harvest tuna with purse seine nets; provisions to protect polar bear; provisions that establish the Marine Mammal Commission and that agency's duties; and provisions for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, including funding for standing response and unusual mortality events. The Act's 1972 Legislative History is also included.

Summary: Plaintiffs adopted a basset hound from animal control despite the fact that the dog had been turned over by a prior owner to be euthanized. The basset hound, who attacked the plaintiffs on three different occasions without injury, attacked plaintiffs' other dog. When one plaintiff tried to separate the dogs, the basset hound attacked him. Defendant removed the basset hound from the home that same day and refused to return the dog to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries, asserting causes of action for, among other things, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal from the New York Supreme Court decision, the appellate court found that under the circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on defendants' misrepresentation and whether plaintiffs could have discovered the dog’s dangerous nature with due diligence. The appellate court also found that the contract clause at issue did not preclude plaintiffs from recovering for negligence because it did not “advise the signor that the waiver extended to claims that might arise from the defendant's own negligence.” The appellate court did, however, find that plaintiffs did not satisfy the “rigorous ... and difficult to satisfy requirements for a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The court also found that sanctions were not warranted.