Dog Bites - Kills Two Cats

What is the name of your state? GA

Two roaming pit bulls killed two of my cats on my property in two separate incidents. In one incident, two witnesses saw both of the dogs on my property, one of the dogs had my dead cat in it's mouth. In the second incident, there was no eyewitnesses to my cats' death, however, the dogs were in my neighbor's yard chasing his cats. He chased them out of his yard, called Animal control who located the same dogs in progress of an attack on another cat. My cat was found dead about 2 hrs after my neighbor called Animal Control. I also reported my second cats' death. After my second call to animal control, the dogs were cited by Animal Control and placed in quarantine, classified as vicious. I sent a demand letter to the dog owner requesting 1374.00 in damages for loss of property which included the loss of both of the cats. The dog owner's mother responded with an offer of $800.00. I have eyewitnesses to the first attack, and 2 other reports in the form of Animal Control documents which clearly document the attacks on the two other animals. Am I better off taking the offer or pursuing the claim in small claims court? Thanks in advance

Amazing you were offered THAT. What do you THINK the value of 2 cats is? Take the $800...

Dog Bites - Kills Cats

Thank you for your response, however, these were not "yard" cats. These were beloved family pets, who were mostly indoor cats. One cat we had for 13 years, one cat we had for 6 years. Because they were beloved family pets, it makes monetary calculation difficult. I THINK they were worth more than $400 each.

currant1craze said:

Thank you for your response, however, these were not "yard" cats. These were beloved family pets, who were mostly indoor cats. One cat we had for 13 years, one cat we had for 6 years. Because they were beloved family pets, it makes monetary calculation difficult. I THINK they were worth more than $400 each.

Click to expand...

But, they're not. And that's my point.
What you had was a nearly dead (from age) cat, and a middle aged cat. As "property" they are worth almost nothing.

Please know that I DO understand your pain over this situation. I had a tug-of-war on my front porch with a stray pit bull on over my cat's body. It's emotionally painful.

In my state, New York, there is a cat leash law and they consider the death of a cat by a dog "nature" and will not prosecute. Personally I don't think it makes the dogs vicious since it is a normal reaction, although we know pitbulls can be unusually mean. I think the most the dogs can be in trouble for is being unleashed and since your cats were too, according to my locality, you could be in trouble as well. Sorry for your loss.

currant1craze said:

Thank you for your response, however, these were not "yard" cats. These were beloved family pets, who were mostly indoor cats. One cat we had for 13 years, one cat we had for 6 years. Because they were beloved family pets, it makes monetary calculation difficult. I THINK they were worth more than $400 each.

Click to expand...

You couldn't value them that much or you wouldn't have let them out AFTER one have already been viciously killed by a pit.

Cats are property and their value is determined by fair market value.

currant1craze said:

I sent a demand letter to the dog owner requesting 1374.00 in damages for loss of property which included the loss of both of the cats.

Click to expand...

How did you arrive at that value?

Were the pits 'destroyed'?

If not accept the 800 upon proof the dogs were killed.

Georgia is one of the more progressive states when it comes to animals being considered more than just property, however $800 sounds like more than you would be awarded should you take this matter to court.

The statutes you may want to review are GA St section 16-12-4 Cruelty to Animals, and GA St sections 4-8-1 through 4-8-45 Consolidated Dog Laws which require registration of dangerous dogs and the necessity of a dangerous-dog-owner to carry at least $15,000 in liability insurance (with those who do not comply risking their dog's confiscation and destruction), and GA St section 51-2-7 Dog Bite Strict Liability Law which states that owners are liable if their dogs are at large due to careless management by the owner, and GA Code Ann. section 4-11-1 through 4-11-17 General Cruelty, which allows for jail time up to a year for general cruelty and up to 5 years for aggravated cruelty, and finally, GA St section 4-8-20 which gives local governing units the right to enact more stringent animal laws.

A Georgia case of interest is Pless v. State, where the defendant Pless was convicted by a jury on 2 counts of failure to keep his animals (2 pit bulls) under restraint and 1 count of allowing his animals to become a public nuisance, under Public Nuisance section 3-4-7. He was ordered to spend one day in jail and charged $250 on each count and he was ordered to reimburse the county for their expenses ($1226.00).

Juries across the country are increasingly awarding large damages in animal abuse cases although, admittedly, the largest awards are generally overturned. But it is a positive sign that more states are recognizing that pets are not property but "family", and the emotional pain that comes with the loss of a pet is worth greater compensation than one would get from, say, a depreciated television set.

currant1craze said:

Thank you for your response, however, these were not "yard" cats. These were beloved family pets, who were mostly indoor cats. One cat we had for 13 years, one cat we had for 6 years. Because they were beloved family pets, it makes monetary calculation difficult. I THINK they were worth more than $400 each.

Click to expand...

Take the money.

$800 is extremely high for these kinds of animals.

And, besides, you shouldn't have let them out if they were so beloved.

quincy said:

Georgia is one of the more progressive states when it comes to animals being considered more than just property, however $800 sounds like more than you would be awarded should you take this matter to court.

The statutes you may want to review are GA St section 16-12-4 Cruelty to Animals, and GA St sections 4-8-1 through 4-8-45 Consolidated Dog Laws which require registration of dangerous dogs and the necessity of a dangerous-dog-owner to carry at least $15,000 in liability insurance (with those who do not comply risking their dog's confiscation and destruction), and GA St section 51-2-7 Dog Bite Strict Liability Law which states that owners are liable if their dogs are at large due to careless management by the owner, and GA Code Ann. section 4-11-1 through 4-11-17 General Cruelty, which allows for jail time up to a year for general cruelty and up to 5 years for aggravated cruelty, and finally, GA St section 4-8-20 which gives local governing units the right to enact more stringent animal laws.

A Georgia case of interest is Pless v. State, where the defendant Pless was convicted by a jury on 2 counts of failure to keep his animals (2 pit bulls) under restraint and 1 count of allowing his animals to become a public nuisance, under Public Nuisance section 3-4-7. He was ordered to spend one day in jail and charged $250 on each count and he was ordered to reimburse the county for their expenses ($1226.00).

Juries across the country are increasingly awarding large damages in animal abuse cases although, admittedly, the largest awards are generally overturned. But it is a positive sign that more states are recognizing that pets are not property but "family", and the emotional pain that comes with the loss of a pet is worth greater compensation than one would get from, say, a depreciated television set.

Click to expand...

So, Quincy, how does ANY of this equate to our OP claiming HIS cats are worth over $600 EACH?

And isn't the cat owner just as guilty, according to those cases, for "careless management of owner" since the cats were running loose twice. Also, with the "cruelty to animals" and "public nuisance" wouldn't that also backfire onto the cat owner. Dogs chasing, killing cats has been a known natural phenomenon forever. I have a hard time understanding how that could be cruelty to animals, unless of course the cat owner who knew the dogs killed her other cat is the one to be charged with cruelty for letting them out again. Maybe violation of the leash law for both of them! Just my thoughts.

Dog Bites - Kills cats

From what I am hearing, I should take the offer. Thank you for your replies and I will continue to monitor the site until my decision is made. Again, just to clarify locale & details: State of Residence - Georgia, County of Forsyth

My cats were on my property, they did not wander off my property (one was on the back porch, not in view of the front of the house). The dogs, over a period of 10 days, running at large, in violation of the county leash law ordinance, came on to my property and attacked and killed my cats. They killed two other cats, and mauled another two streets over. The owner was cited for animal running at large, the dogs classified as "vicious" and both the dogs were quarantined. According to the animal control statute, an animal has to be classified as "dangerous" or potentially dangerous after biting a human and have a hearing before being considered for destruction. Also, Georgia subscribes to the "one bite" rule.

The State of Georgia and the county of Forsyth where I reside requires the following:

Sec. 11-4. Duty to keep animal under restraint--While on property.

(a) It shall be the duty of every owner of any animal to ensure that it is confined by way of a fence or other enclosure including activated invisible fence or is restrained by chain or leash or, in some other physical manner, under the control of a competent person so that it cannot wander off the real property limits of the owner, it being the intent of this article that all animals be prevented from leaving, while unattended, the real property limits of their owners.

Animal(s) means any domesticated animals and fowl.

Animal at large means any animal not under restraint or voice control and off the property of its owner. If an animal has no known owner or keeper, then it shall be considered "at large" when on any public or private property.

Vicious animal means any animal which constitutes a physical threat to human beings or other animals by virtue of one or more attacks of such severity as to cause physical injury. An animal shall also be considered vicious if it makes an unprovoked attack on human beings or other domesticated animals.

(a) The term "vicious animal" shall also mean:

(1) An animal that because of temperament, conditioning or training, has a known propensity to attack, bite or injure other living creatures without provocation.

The words "vicious animal" shall mean any animal which attacks, bites or injures humans, other animals without provocation; or which, because of temperament, conditioning or training, has a known propensity to attack, bite or injure other living creatures without provocation; or any animal which constitutes a physical threat to human beings or domesticated animals by one or more attacks without provocation of such severity to cause physical injury.

I must add to this post that I believe the animal control officers correctly assessed the situation and it is just unfortunate that it took the death of two or more cats to get the animals classified as vicious. I plan on following up with animal control to ensure that the owner properly posts a notice of "vicious animal" as required by the ordinance.

Thanks again for all the comments

i'd be more concerned about my own safety and the safety of the kids in the neighborhood with these pits running around loose.

here, this is interesting

http://www.nabr.org/animallaw/Damages/index.htm

and here is that TN statute I told you guys about once before (but couldn't find the link)

Tennessee Statute on Non-Economic Damages

Source:
Tennessee Code/TITLE 44 ANIMALS AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY/CHAPTER 17 DOGS AND CATS/PART 4 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS/44-17-403. Death of pet caused by negligent act of another - Damages.

44-17-403. Death of pet caused by negligent act of another - Damages.

(a) If a person's pet is killed or sustains injuries which result in death caused by the unlawful and intentional, or negligent, act of another or the animal of another, the trier of fact may find the individual causing the death or the owner of the animal causing the death liable for up to four thousand dollars ($4,000) in noneconomic damages; provided, that if such death is caused by the negligent act of another, the death or fatal injury must occur on the property of the deceased pet's owner or caretaker, or while under the control and supervision of the deceased pet's owner or caretaker.

(b) As used in this section, "pet" means any domesticated dog or cat normally maintained in or near the household of its owner.

(c) Limits for noneconomic damages set out in subsection (a) shall not apply to causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or any other civil action other than the direct and sole loss of a pet.

(d) Noneconomic damages awarded pursuant to this section shall be limited to compensation for the loss of the reasonably expected society, companionship, love and affection of the pet.

(e) This section shall not apply to any not-for-profit entity or governmental agency, or its employees, negligently causing the death of a pet while acting on the behalf of public health or animal welfare; to any killing of a dog that has been or was killing or worrying livestock as in § 44-17-203; nor shall this section be construed to authorize any award of noneconomic damages in an action for professional negligence against a licensed veterinarian.

(f) The provisions of this section shall apply only in incorporated areas of any county having a population in excess of seventy-five thousand (75,000) according to the 1990 federal census or any subsequent census.

[Acts 2000, ch. 762, § 1.]

VeronicaLodge said:

here, this is interesting

Click to expand...

And, irrelevant. OP is from Georgia.