The City of Monash has spent almost $100,000 defending itself in court cases involving dogs targeted by the breed-specific provisions of Australia’s Domestic Animals Act.
Cardinia, a suburb of Melbourne, spent $80,000 on a single case involving a dog that the court later determined should not have been taken. The dog was returned to its owner.[1]
On Monday, August 6, 2012, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates, meeting at the 2012 ABA convention in Chicago, approved a resolution urging "all state, territorial, and local legislative bodies and governmental agencies [. . .] to repeal breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions."
The recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Tracey v Solesky modifies the common law in Maryland regarding liability for bites attributed to dogs the Court alternately referred to as “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix”. The decision establishes a strict liability standard for persons who own, harbor or control “pit bull,” “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” dogs, when a dog so labeled injures a person.