Alabama

Summary: <p> In this Alabama case, there was an injury to a non-tenant child by a dog bite, and the defendant was a landlord.&nbsp; The attack occurred off the rented premises in the public street. <span> &nbsp;&nbsp; </span> The action was based upon negligence, that is, a failure to protect against a dangerous condition. <span> &nbsp; </span> The key to such a claim is the knowledge of the landlord. Plaintiff presented no evidence of the landlord being aware of the dog let alone that he knew of its vicious propensity. <span> &nbsp; </span> The court did not find a duty to inspect the premises and discover this information.&nbsp; The court did not reach the point that the attack occurred off the premises.&nbsp; The granting of the motion for summary judgment for the landlord was upheld. </p>

Summary: <p> The owner of a lost dog found the dog in an animal shelter and asked for its return. The shelter gave it back but sterilized it first despite the owner's wishes that it not be sterilized. The court held the shelter owed a duty to give the dog back without sterilizing it and affirmed a finding of negligence. </p>

Summary: <p> In this Alabama case, a motorcyclist and passenger were injured when they collided with defendant's dog while traveling on public roadway and brought an action for damages.&nbsp;The Circuit Court, Elmore County granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and the&nbsp;motorcyclist and passenger appealed. The Court held that there is no recover at common law, as no negligence was shown. The Court would not accept the proposal that all owners should be charged with the knowledge that dogs will chase cars. <span> &nbsp; </span> &ldquo;We hold that the owner of a dog may not be charged with the general knowledge that all dogs chase motor vehicles, and therefore that the law will not impute such general knowledge to dog owners in actions for injuries incurred. We, therefore, affirm the defendant's summary judgment.&rdquo; </p>

Summary: <p> Plaintiff horse owner appealed a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court (Alabama) entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendant veterinarian in a malpractice action arising from the death of the owner's horse. The horse owner contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the veterinarian in the malpractice action. </p>

Summary: <p> Defendant was convicted of unlawfully owning, possessing, keeping or training a dog or dogs with intent that such dog or dogs be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog, and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that: (1)&nbsp;dogfighting statute&nbsp;was not unconstitutionally vague; (2) testimony of animal cruelty investigator was sufficient for jury to conclude that defendant owned dogs after effective date of antidog-fighting statute; (3) evidence as to poor conditions of dogs and their vicious propensities exhibited while lodged at animal shelter was relevant to issue of defendant's intent to fight the dogs; and (4) evidence gained by police officer pursuant to search warrant was not inadmissible. <br/> </p>

Summary: <p> A case involving an automobile accident in which the court declared that photographs may be authenticated by a party having personal knowledge of the location and who can verify that the photos substantially represent the conditions as they existed at the time in question. </p>

Summary: <p> The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest. </p>

Summary: <p> In this&nbsp;Alabama case, defendant Walter Tyrone Ware was indicted on six counts of owning, possessing, keeping, and/or training a dog for fighting purposes, and one count of possessing a controlled substance.&nbsp; Police were dispatched to defendant's residence after receiving an anonymous tip about alleged dogfighting.&nbsp; Upon arriving, police found a bleeding dog on the ground next to an SUV, a puppy in the SUV, and 22 more pit bull dogs in the backyard.&nbsp; Most of the dogs were very thin or emaciated, and at least two dogs had fresh cuts or puncture wounds.&nbsp; On appeal, defendant claimed that there was no evidence that he had attended a dog fight or hosted one.&nbsp; However, the court observed that Alabama's dogfighting statute does not require such direct evidence; rather, a case was made based on&nbsp;evidence of training equipment, injured dogs, and the dogs' aggressive behavior exhibited&nbsp;at the animal shelter after seizure.&nbsp; </p>

Summary: <p> Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing. </p>

Summary: This set of regulations sets forth the powers and duties of the State Veterinarian and&nbsp;includes import, transport, inspection, sanitation,and slaughter rules for livestock and poultry. In addition, it includes requirements for the import, transport, or exhibition of wild, semi-wild, and exotic animals, and the import of dogs, cats, ratites, and goats.