County Board Hopes to Strengthen Old Law Curbing Vicious Animals

In 1872, at a time when Ulysses Grant was president and Newton Booth was governor of California, the state Legislature decided to draw the line against attacks on humans by mischievous animals.

The lawmakers made it a felony for someone who knew his animal was dangerous to let that animal loose so that it killed a person-- if the victim first took “all the precautions which the circumstances permitted” or which a reasonable person would be expected to take in the same situation.

During the past 114 years, it is safe to say, few people have been prosecuted under that statute, which, in the spirit of the Wild West, seems almost to have put the burden on the victim to avoid a fatal attack.

But now the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, responding to increased reports of attacks by vicious dogs, is seeking legislation that would broaden the law to enable more felony prosecutions of people whose animals injure another person.

The new law would apply not just to the owners of mischievous animals, but to the owners or any person having custody or control of a mischievous, vicious or dangerous animal or a dog trained to attack, fight, kill or protect.

Unlike current law, which requires that an animal’s owner know its propensities, the new law would require only that the owner or caretaker, if they are to be prosecuted, should have known of these attributes before the animal went on a rampage. And while the 1872 statute holds that to be prosecuted a person must willfully allow the animal to go at large, the county’s proposed change would allow prosecution if the owner willfully or negligently permitted the animal to roam free.

But the major change the county is seeking would make it a felony for a person to allow such an animal to kill or “inflict substantial injury” on a human being.

“Our proposal sets a higher standard of care and liability not only for owners of animals but also their custodians,” said John Sweeten, director of legislative affairs for the county. “We think this is a very reasonable proposal to update a seriously out of date law, enacted at a point when population density was much less than it is now.

“We live in an urban society now,” Sweeten said. “We have to take different kinds of precautions. This establishes a good neighbor policy when it comes to managing things that should be kept under your control.”

San Diego’s effort to gain passage of this legislation illustrates how local government often must depend on its state counterpart to enact meaningful reforms. Throughout 1986, county government has been seeking to toughen its ordinances dealing with vicious animals.

In August, the county supervisors expanded the definition of a vicious dog, declared that such animals could be immediately declared a public nuisance, and included the custodian, along with the owner of a vicious dog, as guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she fails to exercise ordinary care in keeping a dog from threatening a person who is acting within the law.

The county also empowered its Animal Control Department to require the owner of a dog declared vicious to obtain as much as $100,000 in liability insurance, up from $10,000. The board also voted to require owners of vicious dogs to notify Animal Control immediately if the dog escapes.

Supervisor Susan Golding, who prompted the board’s action on the issue, said she believes it will take felony penalties--perhaps prison terms--to get the attention of irresponsible pet owners. For this the county must go to the state.

“The current law applies only where the victim is killed,” Golding said. “We’re not in a position where dogs are killing people. We’ve had what you might call a rash of vicious animal attacks where children and others were severly maimed and injured. The statute as it stands does not address that. Somehow, we have to structure it so the owners take their responsibility a little more seriously.”

Sally Hazzard, the county’s director of animal control, said there have been two or three cases a year for the past several years in San Diego which, under stricter laws, might have been prosecuted as felonies.

“We don’t have that choice now,” Hazzard said. “The district attorney doesn’t have that choice. The purpose of what we want to do is allow those options.”