Us Court Ruling

[Steve]

http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/Pa.Supreme.....2.1396115.html

TEXT SIZE

_By: MARK SCOLFORO_ (mailto:)

The Associated Press

Tuesday December 29, 2009 07:53 PM

The Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals doesn't

qualify as a state agency and so can't claim immunity from a lawsuit over the

euthanization of a woman's dogs, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The court ruled unanimously that the nonprofit group is not entitled to the

defense of sovereign or governmental immunity despite its work enforcing

state animal control laws.

The SPCA appealed after a Philadelphia jury awarded Laila Snead about

$155,000 in a case that began with the January 1999 seizure of about a dozen dogs from what court records described as an abandoned home.

A humane society officer reported there were 13 dogs, according to a

lower-court ruling in the matter, but Snead maintains that there were only 12 dogs and that she was staying in the home off and on at the time.

All but one of the dogs were pit bulls, and the humane society officer said

several of the dogs were wounded and emaciated, according to a July 2007

Superior Court opinion.

Snead showed up shortly after officers arrived at the scene and was

arrested on dog fighting charges. Those charges were dropped the following day,

although she later was convicted of a summary offense of animal cruelty.

Snead said that three days later, when she tried to check on her dogs at a

shelter, she was told they had been put to sleep, although that didn't occur

until three more days had passed. An SPCA official denied that he told her

the dogs had been euthanized, but the jury sided with her.

On appeal, the state Superior Court rejected the SPCA's argument that it

was immune from being sued and granted Snead attorney's fees but reversed the

$100,000 punitive-damages portion of the verdict. That lower-court decision

was upheld on Tuesday by the Supreme Court.

"The SPCA selects its own directors, who oversee it and elect its

officers," Justice J. Michael Eakin wrote. "The SPCA's funding largely derives from non-governmental sources. The SPCA cannot point to any commonwealth assets

that would be at risk from any judgment against it; commonwealth resources

would not be imperiled if the SPCA is exposed to legal liability."

Snead, who now lives in Reading, said she was pleased with the verdict but

"all the money in the world is not going to bring my dogs back."

"When they say, 'You know what? We're going to do this and we don't care

what the law says, what you think about it, this is what we're doing,' then,

yes, in that case, something should be done," Snead said. "My only recourse

was the civil court system."

SPCA spokeswoman Gail Luciani said the group was disappointed with the

ruling because of its far-reaching implications.

[gundoglover]

Interesting overseas precedent.

[D & D]

Interesting overseas precedent.

I wouldn't really call it a precedent. The Darwin RSPCA was sued a few years ago, and lost.

The only info I could find

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2003/s1069891.htm

BTW: I knew the woman involved, she moved to Vic and was murdered not long ago (not related).

[Erny]

http://kdka.com/wireapnewsfnpa/Pa.Supreme.....2.1396115.html

"The SPCA selects its own directors, who oversee it and elect its officers," Justice J. Michael Eakin wrote. "The SPCA's funding largely derives from non-governmental sources. The SPCA cannot point to any commonwealth assets that would be at risk from any judgement against it; commonwealth resources would not be imperiled if the SPCA is exposed to legal liability."

You could almost insert "RSPCA" in place of "SPCA" in this paragraph. The article you raise has rings of similarities to Judy's case too, does it not?

Is that our Aussie law? IE That if commonwealth resources would be imperilled it means you can't sue? Or, conversely, that if Commonwealth resources would NOT be imperilled, it means you CAN sue?

Edited January 7, 2010 by Erny

[asal]

my vet was pertty adamant that i sue the rspca for cruelty to my dog stringy.

but goodness as i tried to explain to him. they have millions behind them, we dont, i really think although you are led to belive that the law is available to all its really available only if you have the funds to go that way or are prepared to lose everything

n anyway that 13 days of mental agony learning that where the rspca is concerned anyway you HAVE NO ONE TO turn to for intervention even when your own vet is prepared to swear there is nothing wrong with your dog. all the rspca inspector has to do as richard amery told me is "form the opinion" the animal "should be seized" for it to be a legal seizure.

what really disheartened me was he wouldnt even entertain the idea that if these inspectors were permitted such sweeping power they at least be properly qualified to form an opinion. but nope he wouldnt even consider that. and as ive said in previous posts, a tech head told one of the teachers of the animal care course that the special constables attending the very course that their job description said they must attend "dont need to pass, they only need to attend"?

im married to the teacher in question so im not talking second or 3rd hand

Edited January 7, 2010 by asal

[Erny]

That's why I often think it will take a Class Action to be able to stand up to them.

But I don't know much about Class Action. I think that's where there is ONE wrong action by (eg) the RSPCA that affects many. I suppose that in their case, they nip one person off at a time and each event would have slightly if not wholly different circumstances, so I guess each one would need to be seen by the Courts on each individual merit, one by one.

Does Statute of Limitations apply in cases where people allege they have been wronged by (eg) the RSPCA?

[Erny]

... a tech head told one of the teachers of the animal care course that the special constables attending the very course that their job description said they must attend "dont need to pass, they only need to attend"

I've heard that from somewhere else, too. Really stokes you full of confidence, doesn't it?

[asal]

considering the tens of thousands of people with the knowledge available that cannot apply to work as special constables because they are not ex police with prosecution experience, really shows where the rspca's prioritys lie.

the man who shot all those dairy cows was perfectly within the law as he "had formed the opinion" they needed to be destroyed immediately and then did so even though he had neither the knowledge or experience to know what he was looking at were high production dairy cows.

as for the moran or should i say "man" "who formed the opinion" that the other ladies cows should die and turned away the truck delivering feed for them on the gounds i think? "that they were too far gone to save. " or something along those lines. i understand there is photo footage proving his "opinion" was incorrect, but they slaughtered them anyway.

if they actually employed people who did have the required knowledge and experience and trained them in "prosecution experience" these horrors would not be occuring surely?

i really dont understand why the minister for agriculture wouldnt consider this far more sensible and surely humane approach.

such a pity a few polies and their families didnt fall into the net and discover for themselvs what so many have already. things would be changed presto

as for the lady with the debarked dogs, words just fail.

so so many dogs are surrendered because neighbours have complained or even the very owners are at their wits end because they have a barker and dont know how to stop the noise and give up and surrender it, when a simple debarking would have resulting in happy neighbours and owner and not the least, a happy dog instead of ending is life with a needle

the number of people ive told about her debarked dogs and the astonishment that there is an op that can moderate those ear pearcing volumes instead of putting the culprit down is amazing how few people even know it can be done?

Edited January 7, 2010 by asal

[centitout]

And the reason the rspca will pull out everything they can regarding debarking is exactly because most people DONT have a problem with a minor procedure being performed on a dog to shut it up if a chronic barker,and i think they are starting to realise that.Just waiting for the emotive ads to start re "debarking".

And the fact that rspca inspectors have no animal skills or even a clue-is beyond comprehension-maybe we need to speak to someone like the farmers federation or something ,and unite under them?They would have more clout than a single group?

Wasnt it the rspca that brought in the rule that all horses must be sedated to float their teeth,cant de horn without vet now etc?

Edited January 7, 2010 by centitout

[Erny]

Wasnt it the rspca that brought in the rule that all horses must be sedated to float their teeth ...

By "float their teeth" (I've not heard that term) you mean file their teeth? As in, the normal and regular care maintenance thing that we do? I never knew that the horse was now meant to be sedated .

I have a horse who stands patiently having sharp corners of his molar teeth filed smooth. He doesn't wear a gag for the job. No twitches. Nada. I'm now supposed to sedate him?

WTF?

[centitout]

Wasnt it the rspca that brought in the rule that all horses must be sedated to float their teeth ...

By "float their teeth" (I've not heard that term) you mean file their teeth? As in, the normal and regular care maintenance thing that we do? I never knew that the horse was now meant to be sedated .

I have a horse who stands patiently having sharp corners of his molar teeth filed smooth. He doesn't wear a gag for the job. No twitches. Nada. I'm now supposed to sedate him?

WTF?

I'm pretty sure in NSW they have to be sedated by a vet now,came in about 2 years ago,was in THE LAND newspaper.We used to do our horses teeth without sedating too,only if it was a big job did we call in the horse dentist,most of the time we used to sedate them ourselves anyway only if required.

Sorry-yes "floating their teeth" is the same as filing!!!

[centitout]

So what used to cost $50 or less,now costs $120 +,vet visit and professional dentist.How many will just ignore the horses teeth probs now?

[gundoglover]

Interesting overseas precedent.

I wouldn't really call it a precedent. The Darwin RSPCA was sued a few years ago, and lost.

The only info I could find

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2003/s1069891.htm

BTW: I knew the woman involved, she moved to Vic and was murdered not long ago (not related).

Thankyou for this information. You have a good memory!

[Alyosha]

If we read the details of this case elsewhere would we think it was a good win?

This person had at least a dozen dogs in a house she admitted she was only living in part of the time at the most. Are we now saying that is ok? And nothing seems to have been disputed about the claim that they were wounded.

She was convicted in a court - beyond reasonable doubt - of animal cruelty.

But we are applauding her having a small win in court which somehow vindicates her?

I am not really following you guys on this one at all. Are we trying to see this woman as a victim here??

Is this a case of wanting to see the bad in any charity-based enforcement agency no matter what?

She has been awarded her legal fees only, the OP states that two Courts have overturned her claim for punitive damages. So on the balance of probabilities both those courts cannot see fit to award in her favour.

[Steve]

If we read the details of this case elsewhere would we think it was a good win?

This person had at least a dozen dogs in a house she admitted she was only living in part of the time at the most. Are we now saying that is ok? And nothing seems to have been disputed about the claim that they were wounded.

She was convicted in a court - beyond reasonable doubt - of animal cruelty.

But we are applauding her having a small win in court which somehow vindicates her?

I am not really following you guys on this one at all. Are we trying to see this woman as a victim here??

Is this a case of wanting to see the bad in any charity-based enforcement agency no matter what?

She has been awarded her legal fees only, the OP states that two Courts have overturned her claim for punitive damages. So on the balance of probabilities both those courts cannot see fit to award in her favour.

I wasnt interested in the case or whether or not she was guilty. I was looking at the fact that here in Australia people FEEL they have no way to challenge decisions made about their animals.It wasnt a demonstration that SHE was vindicated - just that she had rights to sue whether she wins or not.

Here,your animals can be taken without the owner understanding why.They can be placed somewhere which the owner doesnt have to be informed about. They can be kept,examined, treated and held as long as they like and then returned in worse condition than when they were seized without any charges being laid. They can be PTS without consultation or a second opinion from an outside vet and the body [ the evidence] destroyed so someone cant have what they might have to defend themselves or make decisions about their animals. As in Asal's case she had done NOTHING wrong but she had no way to resolve her feelings of being treated so poorly and having her animal placed at risk when there was no need to.

So the discussion isnt about that particular case - its about anyone having the option of being able to have a method of taking it further if they need to.