My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-05-12
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
1999
>
1999-05-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2009 2:43:10 PM
Creation date
12/21/2009 2:41:47 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
252
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
[ <br /> having several provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act struck down. <br /> B. Improper search and seizure <br /> In cases where enforcement officers entered on a person's property in order to inspect <br /> or capture an animal without a warrant, the animal control owner may request section <br /> 1983 damages 8 Again, because it may be possible for an animal owner to obtain <br /> attorney's fees (making the suit very expensive) if an enforcement officer conducts a <br /> warrantless search of the owner's premises, the enforcement officer should seek a <br /> warrant prior to entering onto an animal owner's premises. <br /> C. Injury or death of animal <br /> The failure to:I) provide humane care to a seized animal; 2) maintain adequate <br /> records; or 3) wait and provide notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the <br /> disposition of an animal may be punishable as misdemeanor. A pet owner may also <br /> file a civil law tort action against the City if the City has harmed or killed the pet. <br /> Damages for negligence claims regarding injuries or death to an animal are limited to <br /> the fair market value of the property 9 Thus, in theory at least, the potential recovery <br /> by a pet owner is minimal. <br /> However, pet owners, who view their pet as a family member often seek damages <br /> beyond fair market value. Damages have been sought under U.S.C. §1983; including <br /> punitive damages and money damages for pain, suffering or emotional distress. Other <br /> states have allowed the pet owner to recover on these types of claims, recognizing that <br /> the pet owner held a special relationship with his/her pet 92 In Minnesota, however, it <br /> is questionable whether a pet owner would be entitled to such remedies 93 While <br /> modern courts recognize the special role pets have within the family unit, pets are <br /> nonetheless property and fair market value continues to be the limit on damages 9 <br /> Even if the court were to recognize such damages, it is generally difficult to succeed <br /> with a negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. To be successful <br /> the plaintiff must show: <br /> • the conduct was extreme and outrageous; <br /> • the conduct was intentional or reckless; <br /> • the conduct caused emotional distress; and <br /> • the distress was severe 95 <br /> The emotional distress suffered must have physical manifestations in addition to being <br /> severe9 Therefore, emotional distress felt by one who has lost a pet would probably <br /> not rise to the level of severity required by case law. <br /> a vTtaciva nroainmorrAOOA4n'/JGLCO xPo 67 Cw) ^Y^ tap. of MwNIS Gln C 1799 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.