Monday, 9 February 2015

Appellate court decisions on BSL and Pit bull type dog danger

For additional accurate information on the public safety Danger of Pit Bull Type Dogs visit:
Matthews v. Amberwood (1998)
Court of Appeals of Maryland

The extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized. "Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals."

Giaculli v. Bright, 584 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.App. 1991). Indeed, it has been judicially noted that pit bulls "bit[e] to kill without signal" (Starkey v. Township of Chester, 628 F. Supp. 196, 197 (E.D. Pa. 1986)), are selectively bred to have very powerful jaws, high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness, a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack, and a greater propensity to bite humans than other breeds ...

("pit bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard ... [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior ... [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks ... coupled with an unpredictable nature" and that "[o]f the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks ... [in the period between July 1983 and April 1989], 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs"). Pit bull dogs have even been considered weapons.
Ohio v. Anderson (1991)
Supreme Court of Ohio

During the past ten years, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of fatalities and severe maulings caused by pit bull dogs.

Unlike dogs who bite or attack merely to protect a person or his property and then retreat once the danger has passed, pit bulls besiege their victims relentlessly, until severe injury or death results. In response, lawmakers in states and cities across the country have enacted legislation regulating pit bull dog ownership...

The American Kennel Club does not recognize the breed and publishes no conformation standards on the pit bull dog. In the pretrial hearings in the case at bar, it was established that the American Kennel Club does not register pit bulls because of their unsavory tendencies.

Therefore, the pit bull is not a recognized breed for the very reason that it must be regulated: it poses a grave and inordinate danger to human health and safety.
Colorado Dog Fanciers v. Denver (1991)
Supreme Court of Colorado

The trial court found that pit bull attacks, unlike attacks by other dogs, occur more often, are more severe, and are more likely to result in fatalities.

The trial court also found that pit bulls tend to be stronger than other dogs, often give no warning signals before attacking, and are less willing than other dogs to retreat from an attack, even when they are in considerable pain.

Since ample evidence exists to establish a rational relationship between the city's classification of certain dogs as pit bulls, and since there is a legitimate governmental purpose in protecting the health and safety of the city's residents and dogs, the trial court correctly concluded that the ordinance did not violate the dog owner's right to equal protection of the laws.
Greenwood v. City of North Salt Lake (1991)
Supreme Court of Utah

The trial court found that pit bull breeds are known for a unique combination of strength, agility, tolerance for pain, and aggressiveness.

The court also found that pit bull breeds were historically bred for fighting and killing other animals, that both Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City have experienced a proportionately higher number of bites and attacks by these breeds than by other breeds, that Animal Control treats pit bull breeds differently than other breeds, and that because of their reputation, these breeds are often acquired by people with the intent of making the dogs mean and aggressive.

Plaintiffs do not challenge these findings. Although it may be true that not all pit bulls are dangerous, the evidence supports the conclusion that, as a group, pit bulls are dangerous animals.