Legislative Changes for Louisiana in 2016

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES FOR LOUISIANA IN 2016

Animal Shelter Registry

SB216 enacted La.R.S. § 3:2364(D)(11) and 3:2366 which create a voluntary registration of animal shelters and the provision of certain records so that statistics of animal shelters can be monitored by the Animal Welfare Commission. This statute gives authority to the Louisiana Animal Welfare Commission to establish and maintain the Louisiana Animal Shelter Registry.

SB216as originally written provided for animal shelters to be required to submit information to the Commission. A Senate amendment changed the language to voluntary registration and provision of information.

The bill was signed into law by the Governor and became effective on August 1, 2016.

The statute as enacted is as follows:

§ 3:2366.Louisiana animal shelter registry. [Effective August 1, 2016]

A.The legislature finds that the establishment and maintenance of a voluntary animal shelter registry will enable the Louisiana Animal Welfare Commission to carry out its duties.

B.As used in this Section, the following terms are defined as follows:
(1)“Commission” means the Louisiana Animal Welfare Commission.
(2)“Public animal shelter” means an animal shelter owned, operated, or designated for the purpose of impoundment of animals by any parish, municipality, or other subdivision of the state.

C.The commission shall establish and maintain a registry for animal shelters called the Louisiana Animal Shelter Registry.

D.On or before the first day of February of each calendar year, each parish governing authority may submit to the commission a list of all public animal shelters located within the parish’s jurisdiction. The list shall include:
(1)The name, physical address, mailing address, contact number, and email address of the public animal shelter.
(2)The name, physical address, mailing address, contact number, and email address of the operator of the public animal shelter.
(3)The name and contact information for the parish or municipal animal control officer.
(4)The hours of operation.

E.On or before the first day of February of each calendar year, each public animal shelter may submit the following to the commission:
(1)The Basic Animal Data Matrix, submitted as “transparent” data, to the Shelter Animals Count database found at Public animal shelters may submit the matrix electronically through this website or fill it out manually and mail it to the commission, which will input the data on behalf of the shelter.
(2)A brief narrative description, not to exceed two pages of twelve point font, of how the animal shelter is ensuring compliance with the provisions of R.S. 3:2461 et seq. and R.S. 3:2471 et seq.

This legislation was introduced due the lack of any oversight of public animal shelters in Louisiana. Prior to the introduction of this legislation, there were no statistics provided or maintained on animal shelters. The information provided by the shelters will help to ensure their compliance with minimum standards for animal shelters as required in La. R.S. 2461) and the pet overpopulation control act (La. R.S. 2471).

Louisiana shelters that choose to comply will submit data through the basic animal data matrix on the national Shelter Animals Count data collection website

It was clearly a blow that the mandatory language of the original bill was stricken, but the prevailing belief of animal advocates in Louisiana is that the law is a good initial step, and that in future legislative sessions the voluntary language can be amended to mandatory language.

Given the current lack of oversight, and the inhumane conditions found at many public animal shelters in Louisiana, the statute seems to be a step in the right direction to recognize that the information sought has value, and can be beneficial in assessing the compliance of animal shelters with spay and neuter laws, adoption rates, and minimum standards of care for shelter animals.

Limitations on Pet Store Animals

SB337 limits the sources from which pet stores can obtain the animals they sell by enacting La.R.S.3:2511. The law went into effect on June 17, 2016, and provides that retail pet stores may only obtain their animals from an animal shelter, animal welfare organization, or certified breeder.

The text of the law is as follows:

§ 3:2511.Restrictions on the retail sale of dogs and cats.

A.As used in this Part, the following terms are defined as follows:
(1)“Animal care facility” means an animal control center or animal shelter, maintained by or under contract with any state, parish, or municipality, whose mission or practice is protecting the welfare of animals and the placement of animals in permanent homes or with animal rescue organizations.
(2)“Animal rescue organization” means any not-for-profit organization which has tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is the rescue of animals and the placement of those animals in permanent homes, and which does not obtain dogs or cats from a breeder or broker for payment or compensation.
(3)“Breeder” means a person who holds a class A license pursuant to the federal Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131, et seq., that has not been suspended in the last five years.
(4)“Cat” means a member of the Felis catus family.
(5)“Dog” means a member of the Canis familiaris family, or hybrid thereof.
(6)“Offer for sale” means to sell, offer for sale or adoption, barter, auction, give away, or otherwise dispose of a dog or cat.
(7)“Retail pet store” means a retail establishment where dogs or cats are sold, exchanged, bartered, or offered for sale as pet animals to the general public at retail. Such definition shall not include an animal care facility or animal rescue organization.
(8)“USDA” means the United States Department of Agriculture.

B.A retail pet store shall offer for sale only dogs and cats that have been obtained from the following sources:
(1)A breeder that is in compliance with R.S. 3:2772(H).
(2)A breeder that has not received from the USDA, pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq., or regulations adopted thereunder, any of the following:
(a)A citation on an inspection report for a direct violation during the three-year period prior to the purchase of the dog or cat by the pet store.
(b)A citation on an inspection report during the three-year period prior to the purchase of the animal by the pet store for three or more indirect violations.
(c)A citation on the two most recent inspection reports prior to the purchase of the animal by the pet store for no-access violations.
(3)An animal care facility.
(4)An animal rescue organization.

C.A retail pet store shall not offer for sale a dog or cat that is younger than eight weeks old.

D.Each retail pet store offering dogs or cats for sale shall post, in a conspicuous location on the cage or enclosure for each dog or cat, a sign containing the name of the breeder, the breeder’s USDA license number, and, if the breeder is required to be licensed in the state in which the breeder is located, the breeder’s state license number.

E.Every retail pet store offering dogs or cats for sale shall maintain records of the source of each dog or cat, including a description of the dog or cat, the name, business address, email address, and USDA license number of the breeder for at least two years following the date of acquisition. Such records shall be made available, immediately upon request, to any law enforcement officer or animal control officer.

F.Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit a municipality or parish from enacting ordinances or regulations establishing more stringent restrictions governing the sale of animals at retail pet stores.

The intent of the statute is to restrict pet stores from getting puppies from puppy mills or other less than reputable breeders. The enactment of the law will limit pet stores to obtaining dogs and cats from animal shelters, non profit animal rescue organizations, and limited breeders.

In order to obtain an animal from a breeder, the breeder must:

1)Not have more than 75 dogs at one time which are over the age of one and used for breeding purposes;

2)Hold a Class A license with the USDA which has not been suspended within the last 5 years

3)Be free of direct violations for the three years preceding the purchase of the animal;

4)Have three or less indirect violations during the three years preceding the purchase of the animal;

5)Not been cited on the two most recent inspection reports for no-access violations.

And, the pet store must have a sign on the cage of the animal which has the breeder’s name and USDA license number

Other requirements include record keeping on the animal and its origin, and not selling puppies under 8 weeks of age.

The legislation will prevent pet stores from selling dogs and cats from puppy mills and similar breeders, and will also give these breeders one less avenue to sell their animals.

Theft of Pets

SB 435 enacted La. R.S. 14:67.30 created a misdemeanor crime of theft for taking, killing or holding for ransom the pet of another. If the person has two or more convictions, the third conviction is a felony.

The Act was effective August 1, 2016, and reads as follows:

§67.30. Theft of animals

A. Except as provided in R.S. 3:2654, theft of animals is the

misappropriation, killing, or taking of any animal which belongs to another,

either without consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by

means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An intent to deprive

the other permanently of the animal or an intent to ransom it for the purpose

of extorting money or favor is essential.

B. Whoever commits the crime of theft of animals shall be imprisoned

for not more than six months or fined not more than five hundred dollars or

both. If the offender in such a case has been convicted of misdemeanor theft of

an animal two or more times previously, upon any subsequent conviction he

shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than two years or

may be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or both.

C. For the purposes of this Section, "animal" means any nonhuman

living creature except for livestock as defined in R.S. 14:67.1

The original bill created a series of different level felony offenses depending on the circumstances of the theft. The Senate amended the bill to its current state which still creates a crime for behavior which was previously not punishable except under regular theft of property statutes.

Burial of Pet Remains with Human Remains

SB166 would have provided for persons to have the remains of their pets buried with them. The bill was tabled for this session with the idea that it would be brought back next session after consult regarding similar statutes in other states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Those states allow for human and pet remains to be buried together either in pet cemeteries or in special sections of human cemeteries.

2016 DEVELOPMENTS IN LOUISIANA LAW

Dog Bites

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2321:

The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by the animal. However, he isanswerable for the damage only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that his animal’s behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nonetheless, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person’s provocation of the dog. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.

Frazier v. Difulco, 188 So. 3d 115 (La.App. 3 Cir. 02/17/16) (unpublished opinion)

Facts:The Plaintiff was a meter reader in Alexandria, LA, and he was bitten by the Defendant’s dog. The facts surrounding the bite were at issue depending upon which party’s version was found to be the truth. However, it was uncontested that the Plaintiff entered the property of the Defendant and was bitten by the dog. It was also uncontested that the dog had no bite history and the Plaintiff did nothing to provoke the dog.

Procedural History:The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims finding that the Plaintiff was grossly negligent. Plaintiff then filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. This case is the appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial which was in part based upon the court’s continued finding of negligence by the Plaintiff.

Opinion Regarding liability of the dog owner:The Court cited La.Civ.Code Art. 2321 which impart strict liability upon a dog owner for injuries caused by a dog which could have been prevented by the owner and which did not result from provocation.

The Court also cited to Pepper v. Triplet, 03-619 (La. 1/21/04), 864 So.2d 181 which held that in order to prove that the dog owner could have prevented the injuries caused by the dog, the Plaintiff must show that the dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm.

In this particular case, the trial court found the Defendant’s recitation of the facts to be more credible than the Plaintiff’s, and, therefore, could not conclude that the Plaintiff had shown that the dog’s owners could have prevented the injuries caused by the dog. The Court, therefore, affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial, and Mr. Difulco was not liable for the injuries sustained from Mr. Frazier’s dog.

Coburn v. Dixon, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 815; 15-1095 (La.App. 3 Cir. 04/27/16)

Facts:Ms. Coburn sustained serious injuries when she was bitten by Ms. Dixon’s dog. Ms. Coburn sued Ms. Dixon, her landlord, and his insurance company.

Procedural History: The landlord and the insurance company won summary judgment in the trial court because Ms. Coburn was unable to prove that the landlord knew of the existence of the dog and that the dog had dangerous propensities.

Opinion Regarding Liability of the Dog Owner: In making its findings, the appellate court determined that in order to prevail at trial, Ms. Coburn would have to prove that under Art. 2321 and Pepper v. Triplet, supra, that the dog presented an unreasonable risk of harm, and that the landlord not only knew about the existence of the dog on the property but was aware of the vicious propensity of the dog.

The appellate court cited Pepper v. Triplet, 864 So. 2nd at 194:

[T]he plaintiff, in order to establish a claim in strict liability, [must] show that the risk of injuryoutweighed the dog’s utility such that it posed an unreasonable risk of harm. If the animal posedan unreasonable risk of harm, then the owner will be presumed to be at fault, because he failed toprevent an injury he could have prevented, and he will be held strictly liable for an injury causedby his dog, unless he can show that the injury was due solely to the fault of a third partyunattributable to him or to a fortuitous event, or, as Article 2321 now provides, the plaintiff failsto establish that the injuries did not result from the injured person’s provocation of the dog.

The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of summary judgment in favor of the landlord because the Plaintiff was unable to prove that the landlord knew of the dog at all, or knew of the dog’s dangerous propensities.

Ducote v. Boleware, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 262; 2015-0764 (La.App. 4 Cir. 02/17/16).

Facts: Buddy, the cat, bit Ms. Ducote as she went for a stroll one evening. Buddy was owned by Mr. Boleware, Ms. Ducote’s neighbor, since Buddy was a kitten, and Buddy had never bitten before. While under rabies quarantine, Buddy also showed no signed of aggression.

Procedural History: Mr. Boleware won a motion for summary judgment in the trial court, and Ms. Ducote appealed

Opinion Regarding Liability of the Cat Owner: The Court found that the second sentence of Art. 2321 abolished strict liability for all domestic animal owners except for dogs:

The Court stated that the standard for owners of animals, other than dogs, is one of ordinary negligence, and this is a return to the scienter standard, i.e., the “first bite rule” which applied prior to Holland v. Buckley, 305 So.2d 113 (La. 1974). Prior to Holland, under a “first bite rule”, exonerated a dog owner from liability unless the owner knew or should have known that the animal posed a danger. Under Art. 2321, the first bite rule does not apply to dogs; however, the first scratch rule does apply to cats.