Connecticut Dog Bite
The legal relationship between owners and their dogs as well as our liability for damages caused to others by our dogs is of critical importance to the dog owner.
The Connecticut dogs bite statute (Connecticut General Statutes section 22-357) and cases interpreted by our courts provides that the owner of any dog who does damage to a person or his/her property is liable for such damages. However, a dog owner may assert a defense if the owner can prove that at the time such damage was sustained, the injured party was trespassing on your property or was committing any other civil wrong. The statute provides further exception to the dog owner’s legal responsibility if the injured party was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.
The Connecticut courts have clarified that merely entering another person's property does not constitute trespass under this statute. "Trespass or tort" means more than mere entry; the statute bars recovery only where the victim is committing or intends to commit an injurious act. (133 C. 509: 140 C. 358.) If the victim was neither a trespasser, not committing a tort, nor provoking the dog then there is no defense.
Dog bites rank second among other common causes of emergency-room injuries (table derived from Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments," )
Cause of injury
Emergency room incidents annually
Baseball/softball
404,364
Dog bites
333,687
Playground accidents
268,810
All-terrain vehicles, mopeds, etc.
125,136
Volleyball
97,523
Inline skating
75,994
Horseback riding
71,162
Baby walkers
28,000
Skateboards
25,486
Monday, April 7, 2008
Insurance Issues in Your Home
Liability as a part of your Household - The need for proper Insurance.
According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites cost insurers $317.2 million during the year 2005. Little changed from $321.6 million in 2003 but down 8 percent from $345.5 million in 2002. While the number of claims paid by insurers fell from approximately 20,800 in 2002 to 15,000 in 2005 -- a decrease of 28 percent -- the cost of the average dog bite claim rose sharply, from roughly $16,600 in 2002 to $21,200 in 2005.
Liability claims account for approximately 4 percent of homeowner’s claims. Dog bite claims in 2005 accounted for about 15 percent of liability claims dollars paid under homeowner’s insurance policies.
As dog owners, we need to consider the following statistics;
· According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs annually, resulting in an estimated 800,000 injuries that require medical attention. With over 50 percent of the bites occurring on the dog owner’s property, the issue is a major source of concern for insurers.
· There currently are 65 million dogs in the USA. (American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2003-2004 National Pet Owners Survey, cited by The Humane Society of the United States,
· Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.)
· An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year. (CDC.)
Every dog owner needs to have homeowner insurance or renters insurance that (a) provides coverage for, and does not exclude, injuries inflicted by dogs or animals in general, and (b) has a limit of at least $100,000 for personal liability. This type of insurance will enable the dog owner's insurance company to pay an appropriate amount of compensation for all but the most severe accidents caused by a dog. Because the dog owner's own relatives, friends and neighbors are the most likely victims of a possible dog attack, having insurance means protecting the people who are closest to the dog owner, thereby protecting valuable relationships and ensuring proper treatment of loved ones.
Given the fact that a dog is most likely to bite someone whom the dog owner loves most, it is recommended that dog owners have higher limits, such as $1 million, through either their homeowners and renters policies or by an "umbrella" policy. It is very inexpensive to obtain an umbrella policy and you should strongly consider such an “excess” policy by contacting your insurance agent for a price quote.
The good news for dog owners, accident victims and society is that homeowners insurance and renters insurance normally provide at least $100,000.00 in benefits for victims.
Other types of insurance also afford protection for the dog owners. Examples include automobile liability insurance, which may cover dog bites that happen in a car, landlord insurance that protects the landlord (but not the tenants) from claims that result from the actions of renters' dogs, and workers compensation coverage which may apply to bites and injuries that happen "on the job." Some companies even sell dog liability insurance. Your insurance agent can provide you with this information and it is always a good idea to update all your insurance coverages no less than annually.
At present, however, the insurance industry is attempting to sell homeowner insurance policies that exclude dog-inflicted injuries. Some insurance companies refuse to sell homeowner insurance to the owners of breeds of dogs that have a reputation for biting, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas and Chow-Chows. Other insurers refuse to sell to anyone who owns any dog whatsoever.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal summed up the problem this way:
Some big insurers, including Allstate and Farmers Insurance Group, won't cover homes in some states if residents own certain breeds. Others exclude some breeds from liability coverage, or charge extra for it. The so-called vicious-breed lists include German shepherds, Akitas and Siberian huskies, along with Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, American pit bull terriers and their cousins. (M.P. McQueen, "Snarling at Insurers," Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2006.)
No dog owner should purchase a homeowner policy or renter’s policy that excludes canine-inflicted injuries, unless he or she buys a supplemental policy that covers them.
The insurance industry also is quietly revising homeowner policies that protected dog owners when they originally bought those policies. Homeowners must carefully read all of the short slips of paper and other notices sent from insurers, in case they eliminate coverage for accidents caused by dogs. If that happens, a dog owner must get a different policy or an umbrella that provides both the coverage plus higher limits of protection.
Connecticut has a law before the State Senate entitled “An Act Concerning Homeowners and Tenants Insurance Underwriting based on Breed of Dog”. This Bill is currently stalled in the Senate Insurance Committee. It has been stalled there for over a year. You should each contact your state senator to urge passage of this bill. If passed, it would limit the ability of an insurance carrier to use the breed of dog owned by the insured as a basis for (1) establishing rates or minimum premiums under the policy, or (2) canceling, refusing to renew or refusing to issue such policy.
Suffice it to say, that all dog owners need to be covered by sufficient insurance to protect themselves and those who may be injured as a result of a dog attack.
According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites cost insurers $317.2 million during the year 2005. Little changed from $321.6 million in 2003 but down 8 percent from $345.5 million in 2002. While the number of claims paid by insurers fell from approximately 20,800 in 2002 to 15,000 in 2005 -- a decrease of 28 percent -- the cost of the average dog bite claim rose sharply, from roughly $16,600 in 2002 to $21,200 in 2005.
Liability claims account for approximately 4 percent of homeowner’s claims. Dog bite claims in 2005 accounted for about 15 percent of liability claims dollars paid under homeowner’s insurance policies.
As dog owners, we need to consider the following statistics;
· According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs annually, resulting in an estimated 800,000 injuries that require medical attention. With over 50 percent of the bites occurring on the dog owner’s property, the issue is a major source of concern for insurers.
· There currently are 65 million dogs in the USA. (American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2003-2004 National Pet Owners Survey, cited by The Humane Society of the United States,
· Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.)
· An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year. (CDC.)
Every dog owner needs to have homeowner insurance or renters insurance that (a) provides coverage for, and does not exclude, injuries inflicted by dogs or animals in general, and (b) has a limit of at least $100,000 for personal liability. This type of insurance will enable the dog owner's insurance company to pay an appropriate amount of compensation for all but the most severe accidents caused by a dog. Because the dog owner's own relatives, friends and neighbors are the most likely victims of a possible dog attack, having insurance means protecting the people who are closest to the dog owner, thereby protecting valuable relationships and ensuring proper treatment of loved ones.
Given the fact that a dog is most likely to bite someone whom the dog owner loves most, it is recommended that dog owners have higher limits, such as $1 million, through either their homeowners and renters policies or by an "umbrella" policy. It is very inexpensive to obtain an umbrella policy and you should strongly consider such an “excess” policy by contacting your insurance agent for a price quote.
The good news for dog owners, accident victims and society is that homeowners insurance and renters insurance normally provide at least $100,000.00 in benefits for victims.
Other types of insurance also afford protection for the dog owners. Examples include automobile liability insurance, which may cover dog bites that happen in a car, landlord insurance that protects the landlord (but not the tenants) from claims that result from the actions of renters' dogs, and workers compensation coverage which may apply to bites and injuries that happen "on the job." Some companies even sell dog liability insurance. Your insurance agent can provide you with this information and it is always a good idea to update all your insurance coverages no less than annually.
At present, however, the insurance industry is attempting to sell homeowner insurance policies that exclude dog-inflicted injuries. Some insurance companies refuse to sell homeowner insurance to the owners of breeds of dogs that have a reputation for biting, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas and Chow-Chows. Other insurers refuse to sell to anyone who owns any dog whatsoever.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal summed up the problem this way:
Some big insurers, including Allstate and Farmers Insurance Group, won't cover homes in some states if residents own certain breeds. Others exclude some breeds from liability coverage, or charge extra for it. The so-called vicious-breed lists include German shepherds, Akitas and Siberian huskies, along with Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, American pit bull terriers and their cousins. (M.P. McQueen, "Snarling at Insurers," Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2006.)
No dog owner should purchase a homeowner policy or renter’s policy that excludes canine-inflicted injuries, unless he or she buys a supplemental policy that covers them.
The insurance industry also is quietly revising homeowner policies that protected dog owners when they originally bought those policies. Homeowners must carefully read all of the short slips of paper and other notices sent from insurers, in case they eliminate coverage for accidents caused by dogs. If that happens, a dog owner must get a different policy or an umbrella that provides both the coverage plus higher limits of protection.
Connecticut has a law before the State Senate entitled “An Act Concerning Homeowners and Tenants Insurance Underwriting based on Breed of Dog”. This Bill is currently stalled in the Senate Insurance Committee. It has been stalled there for over a year. You should each contact your state senator to urge passage of this bill. If passed, it would limit the ability of an insurance carrier to use the breed of dog owned by the insured as a basis for (1) establishing rates or minimum premiums under the policy, or (2) canceling, refusing to renew or refusing to issue such policy.
Suffice it to say, that all dog owners need to be covered by sufficient insurance to protect themselves and those who may be injured as a result of a dog attack.
Pet Breeds and Insurance Coverage
Are you covered for the damage your Pet may inflict?
The insurance industry is clamping down on dog owners. Two tactics are being used:
Banning sales of policies to owners of certain breeds. (To read more about excluding dog bites from coverage, see Insurance for the dog owner.) Excluding dog bites and other dog inflicted injuries from coverage (in other words, the dog owner is covered for other things, but not canine inflicted injuries).
Currently, owners of pit bulls and Rottweilers have the most trouble finding insurance. Most companies look suspiciously at those breeds. See generally, Humane Society of the United States, "Insurance Companies Unfairly Target Specific Dog Breeds," January 2005.
Some companies have a comprehensive list. Here is the list from Automobile Club:
Pit Bulls & Rottweilers (No full bred or mix) Akita - including Japanese and Akita Inu Bernese - including Mountain Dog, Berner Sennenhund and Bernese Cattle Dog Canary Dogs - including Perro de Presa Canario Chow Chow Doberman Husky - including American, Eskimo and Greenland (Siberian is OK) Karelian Bear Dog Rhodesian Ridgeback Russo-European Laika - including Russian Laika and Karelian Bear Laika Any breed of guard dog trained to attack Wolf Hybrids The foregoing applies to both purebred and mixed breed dogs.
Overview - insurance for dog owners:
Every dog owner needs to have homeowner insurance or renters insurance that (a) provides coverage for, and does not exclude, injuries inflicted by dogs or animals in general, and (b) has a limit of at least $100,000 for personal liability. This type of insurance will enable the dog owner's insurance company to pay an appropriate amount of compensation for all but the most severe accidents caused by a dog. Because the dog owner's own relatives, friends and neighbors are the most likely victims of a possible dog attack, having insurance means protecting the people who are closest to the dog owner, thereby protecting valuable relationships and ensuring proper treatment of loved ones.
Given the fact that a dog is most likely to bite someone whom the dog owner loves most, it is recommended that dog owners have higher limits, such as $1 million, through either their homeowners and renters policies or by an "umbrella" policy. It is very inexpensive to obtain an umbrella policy.
Every dog owner is exposed to possible liability for dog bites and other canine-inflicted injuries. Dogs bite nearly five million Americans every year, children are the victims of the most serious attacks, and the annual losses equal approximately $1 Billion (see Dog Bite Statistics). These losses do not have to be borne by the dog owners and victims, because insurance is available to pay for it.
The good news for dog owners, accident victims and society is that homeowners insurance and renters insurance normally provide at least $100,000.00 in benefits for victims.
Other types of insurance also afford protection for the insureds. Examples include automobile liability insurance, which may cover dog bites that happen in a car, landlord insurance that protects the landlord (but not the tenants) from claims that result from the actions of renters' dogs, and workers compensation coverage which may apply to bites and injuries that happen "on the job." Some companies even sell dog liability insurance. See below for details.
At present, however, the insurance industry is attempting to sell homeowner insurance policies that exclude dog-inflicted injuries. Some insurance companies refuse to sell homeowner insurance to the owners of breeds of dogs that have a reputation for biting, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas and Chow-Chows. Other insurers refuse to sell to anyone who owns any dog whatsoever. (See Breed specific laws, regulations and bans.)
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal summed up the problem this way:
Some big insurers, including Allstate and Farmers Insurance Group, won't cover homes in some states if residents own certain breeds. Others exclude some breeds from liability coverage, or charge extra for it. The so-called vicious-breed lists include German shepherds, Akitas and Siberian huskies, along with Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, American pit bull terriers and their cousins. (M.P. McQueen, "Snarling at Insurers," Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2006.)
No dog owner should purchase a homeowner policy or renters policy that excludes canine-inflicted injuries, unless he or she buys a supplemental policy that covers them.
The insurance industry also is quietly revising homeowner policies that protected dog owners when they originally bought those policies. Homeowners must carefully read all of the short slips of paper and other notices sent from insurers, in case they eliminate coverage for accidents caused by dogs. If that happens, a dog owner must get a different policy or an umbrella that provides both the coverage plus higher limits of protection.
For all these reasons, dog owners need to learn about insurance.
The insurance industry is clamping down on dog owners. Two tactics are being used:
Banning sales of policies to owners of certain breeds. (To read more about excluding dog bites from coverage, see Insurance for the dog owner.) Excluding dog bites and other dog inflicted injuries from coverage (in other words, the dog owner is covered for other things, but not canine inflicted injuries).
Currently, owners of pit bulls and Rottweilers have the most trouble finding insurance. Most companies look suspiciously at those breeds. See generally, Humane Society of the United States, "Insurance Companies Unfairly Target Specific Dog Breeds," January 2005.
Some companies have a comprehensive list. Here is the list from Automobile Club:
Pit Bulls & Rottweilers (No full bred or mix) Akita - including Japanese and Akita Inu Bernese - including Mountain Dog, Berner Sennenhund and Bernese Cattle Dog Canary Dogs - including Perro de Presa Canario Chow Chow Doberman Husky - including American, Eskimo and Greenland (Siberian is OK) Karelian Bear Dog Rhodesian Ridgeback Russo-European Laika - including Russian Laika and Karelian Bear Laika Any breed of guard dog trained to attack Wolf Hybrids The foregoing applies to both purebred and mixed breed dogs.
Overview - insurance for dog owners:
Every dog owner needs to have homeowner insurance or renters insurance that (a) provides coverage for, and does not exclude, injuries inflicted by dogs or animals in general, and (b) has a limit of at least $100,000 for personal liability. This type of insurance will enable the dog owner's insurance company to pay an appropriate amount of compensation for all but the most severe accidents caused by a dog. Because the dog owner's own relatives, friends and neighbors are the most likely victims of a possible dog attack, having insurance means protecting the people who are closest to the dog owner, thereby protecting valuable relationships and ensuring proper treatment of loved ones.
Given the fact that a dog is most likely to bite someone whom the dog owner loves most, it is recommended that dog owners have higher limits, such as $1 million, through either their homeowners and renters policies or by an "umbrella" policy. It is very inexpensive to obtain an umbrella policy.
Every dog owner is exposed to possible liability for dog bites and other canine-inflicted injuries. Dogs bite nearly five million Americans every year, children are the victims of the most serious attacks, and the annual losses equal approximately $1 Billion (see Dog Bite Statistics). These losses do not have to be borne by the dog owners and victims, because insurance is available to pay for it.
The good news for dog owners, accident victims and society is that homeowners insurance and renters insurance normally provide at least $100,000.00 in benefits for victims.
Other types of insurance also afford protection for the insureds. Examples include automobile liability insurance, which may cover dog bites that happen in a car, landlord insurance that protects the landlord (but not the tenants) from claims that result from the actions of renters' dogs, and workers compensation coverage which may apply to bites and injuries that happen "on the job." Some companies even sell dog liability insurance. See below for details.
At present, however, the insurance industry is attempting to sell homeowner insurance policies that exclude dog-inflicted injuries. Some insurance companies refuse to sell homeowner insurance to the owners of breeds of dogs that have a reputation for biting, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Akitas and Chow-Chows. Other insurers refuse to sell to anyone who owns any dog whatsoever. (See Breed specific laws, regulations and bans.)
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal summed up the problem this way:
Some big insurers, including Allstate and Farmers Insurance Group, won't cover homes in some states if residents own certain breeds. Others exclude some breeds from liability coverage, or charge extra for it. The so-called vicious-breed lists include German shepherds, Akitas and Siberian huskies, along with Alaskan Malamutes, Chow Chows, Doberman Pinschers, American pit bull terriers and their cousins. (M.P. McQueen, "Snarling at Insurers," Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2006.)
No dog owner should purchase a homeowner policy or renters policy that excludes canine-inflicted injuries, unless he or she buys a supplemental policy that covers them.
The insurance industry also is quietly revising homeowner policies that protected dog owners when they originally bought those policies. Homeowners must carefully read all of the short slips of paper and other notices sent from insurers, in case they eliminate coverage for accidents caused by dogs. If that happens, a dog owner must get a different policy or an umbrella that provides both the coverage plus higher limits of protection.
For all these reasons, dog owners need to learn about insurance.
Connecticut Domestic Violence and your Pet......
Connecticuts Domestic Violence Statute and how it can Protect Your Pet.
We’ve all heard about the increase in domestic violence that seems to have reached epic proportions in far too many families around our state. For many years the courts have addressed these cases utilizing two state laws specifically designed by our legislature to provide relief to a victim of serious physical abuse or to any individual who has been placed in fear of serious physical harm.
Typically, an applicant of a civil restraining order or a victim in a criminal case who receives the benefit of a protective order faces many difficult problems in addition to the physical and emotional trauma. But what about the pets of the applicant/victim? What happens to them when the abusive spouse or roommate threatens to remove the pet when he or she is removed from their dwelling?
Effective October 1, 2007, the Connecticut legislature enacted an “AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PETS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES”. The law amends the civil restraining order law and the criminal protective order law by allowing the issuing Judge of the Superior Court to “…make such orders as it deems appropriate for the protection of any animal owned or kept by the applicant including, but not limited to, an order enjoining the respondent from injuring or threatening to injure such animal.”
This new law now allows a judge to protect the animal from injury or the threat of injury by the person against whom the restraining order or protective order has been issued.
Connecticut has now joined the ranks of many states across the country in addressing this very difficult dilemma posed in cases of this kind.
The Courts are full of cases involving not only harm to people in domestic relationships, but actual theft and serious injury or death to domestic animals at the hands of the violent perpetrator.
This new law has finally recognized the rights of pet owners to protect their loved animals against this terrible problem. While the law is still new, many courts in our state have begun to implement it’s provisions, protecting the pet from harm in these difficult and highly charged emotional proceedings.
We’ve all heard about the increase in domestic violence that seems to have reached epic proportions in far too many families around our state. For many years the courts have addressed these cases utilizing two state laws specifically designed by our legislature to provide relief to a victim of serious physical abuse or to any individual who has been placed in fear of serious physical harm.
Typically, an applicant of a civil restraining order or a victim in a criminal case who receives the benefit of a protective order faces many difficult problems in addition to the physical and emotional trauma. But what about the pets of the applicant/victim? What happens to them when the abusive spouse or roommate threatens to remove the pet when he or she is removed from their dwelling?
Effective October 1, 2007, the Connecticut legislature enacted an “AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF PETS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES”. The law amends the civil restraining order law and the criminal protective order law by allowing the issuing Judge of the Superior Court to “…make such orders as it deems appropriate for the protection of any animal owned or kept by the applicant including, but not limited to, an order enjoining the respondent from injuring or threatening to injure such animal.”
This new law now allows a judge to protect the animal from injury or the threat of injury by the person against whom the restraining order or protective order has been issued.
Connecticut has now joined the ranks of many states across the country in addressing this very difficult dilemma posed in cases of this kind.
The Courts are full of cases involving not only harm to people in domestic relationships, but actual theft and serious injury or death to domestic animals at the hands of the violent perpetrator.
This new law has finally recognized the rights of pet owners to protect their loved animals against this terrible problem. While the law is still new, many courts in our state have begun to implement it’s provisions, protecting the pet from harm in these difficult and highly charged emotional proceedings.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
You can't make this stuff up.....
Laws that you see you fined or Jailed from across the United States
While most of us would agree that laws are not meant to be broken and certainly not laughed at, how can we not raise a smile when we discover a law which could see us fined or JAILED for making funny faces at dogs!
Take a peek at just a few wacky dog laws that I have uncovered and by all means take a note of some, you can use them next time you need to impress anyone with a deep knowledge of genuinely useless trivia.
California: In some areas of California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. Cats and dogs are not allowed to mate without a permit.
Hartford, Connecticut it is illegal to educate dogs.
Northbrook, Illinois it is illegal for dogs to bark for more than fifteen minutes.
Zion, Illinois it is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals kept as pets. (So cigarettes are ok?)
Palding, Ohio A police officer may bite a dog to quiet him.
In some areas of Oklahoma: People who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed.
Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property. (Combating the problem of gangs of canine 'hoodies', good forward thinking legislation huh?)
North Carolina Laws applying to some areas of North Carolina prohibit fights between cats and dogs.
Michigan: It is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber.
Fort Thomas, Kentucky Dogs may not molest cars.
Anchorage, Alaska, United States No one may tie their pet dog to the roof of a car.
Belvedere, California, United States "No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash.(do you think they got this one backwards?)
Denver: The dog catcher must notify dogs of impounding by posting, for three consecutive days, a notice on a tree in the city park and along a public road running through said park.
Illinois it is illegal to give a dog whiskey (presumably Vodka is ok right?)
Chicago it is illegal to take a French poodle to the opera.
Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up...or could you?
While most of us would agree that laws are not meant to be broken and certainly not laughed at, how can we not raise a smile when we discover a law which could see us fined or JAILED for making funny faces at dogs!
Take a peek at just a few wacky dog laws that I have uncovered and by all means take a note of some, you can use them next time you need to impress anyone with a deep knowledge of genuinely useless trivia.
California: In some areas of California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. Cats and dogs are not allowed to mate without a permit.
Hartford, Connecticut it is illegal to educate dogs.
Northbrook, Illinois it is illegal for dogs to bark for more than fifteen minutes.
Zion, Illinois it is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals kept as pets. (So cigarettes are ok?)
Palding, Ohio A police officer may bite a dog to quiet him.
In some areas of Oklahoma: People who make "ugly faces" at dogs may be fined and/or jailed.
Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property. (Combating the problem of gangs of canine 'hoodies', good forward thinking legislation huh?)
North Carolina Laws applying to some areas of North Carolina prohibit fights between cats and dogs.
Michigan: It is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber.
Fort Thomas, Kentucky Dogs may not molest cars.
Anchorage, Alaska, United States No one may tie their pet dog to the roof of a car.
Belvedere, California, United States "No dog shall be in a public place without its master on a leash.(do you think they got this one backwards?)
Denver: The dog catcher must notify dogs of impounding by posting, for three consecutive days, a notice on a tree in the city park and along a public road running through said park.
Illinois it is illegal to give a dog whiskey (presumably Vodka is ok right?)
Chicago it is illegal to take a French poodle to the opera.
Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up...or could you?
Saturday, April 5, 2008
What to Do When Involved in a Car Accident in Connecticut
What to Do When Involved in a Car Accident in Connecticut
Connecticut Auto Accident Information
If you are involved in an auto accident, you may be entitled to recover damaged for your pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, medical expenses, loss of earning, inconvenience and property damage.
What to do When Injured in a Car accident in Connecticut?
1. If you are seriously injured or concerned that you may require immediate medical attention then seek help for emergency workers.
2. If you are not in need of emergency or immediate medical attention, take time to survey the area where the accident occurred including important details:
a. Identity of the driver of the other vehicle(s);
b. Identify any possible witness to the accident – identify them to the police officer;
c. Look for skid marks as well as other evidence such as broken glass, broken tail lights
or other parts that have been damaged also noting any debris location;
3. Obtain information from the other driver:
a. Name;
b. Address;
c. Phone number;
d. Name of insurance company.
4. Talk with the police officer
a. Make sure you clearly inform the investigating officer of your understanding of how
the accident happened.
5. If you have a cell phone with a camera or a other camera take pictures of the scene, roadway, driver(s), passenger(s) and the vehicles themselves.
6. Obtain information of any witnesses:
a. Name;
b. Address;
c. Phone number;
From the beginning , you need to have the understanding that you life may change as a result of what just occurred. Cooperation and assistance from the insurance companies will play a major component in getting your affairs back in order. The insurance adjuster has one mindset – pay you a little as possible to get you to sign a release.
Successfully dealing with this process are those who can find an attorney who will take on the responsibility of getting their clients car fixed and properly adjusted or replace if required, dealing with doctors or other medical providers to verify you get the treatment you need and lastly how it will get paid – either med pay (part of your automobile policy) or your medical insurance.
Connecticut Auto Accident Information
If you are involved in an auto accident, you may be entitled to recover damaged for your pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, medical expenses, loss of earning, inconvenience and property damage.
What to do When Injured in a Car accident in Connecticut?
1. If you are seriously injured or concerned that you may require immediate medical attention then seek help for emergency workers.
2. If you are not in need of emergency or immediate medical attention, take time to survey the area where the accident occurred including important details:
a. Identity of the driver of the other vehicle(s);
b. Identify any possible witness to the accident – identify them to the police officer;
c. Look for skid marks as well as other evidence such as broken glass, broken tail lights
or other parts that have been damaged also noting any debris location;
3. Obtain information from the other driver:
a. Name;
b. Address;
c. Phone number;
d. Name of insurance company.
4. Talk with the police officer
a. Make sure you clearly inform the investigating officer of your understanding of how
the accident happened.
5. If you have a cell phone with a camera or a other camera take pictures of the scene, roadway, driver(s), passenger(s) and the vehicles themselves.
6. Obtain information of any witnesses:
a. Name;
b. Address;
c. Phone number;
From the beginning , you need to have the understanding that you life may change as a result of what just occurred. Cooperation and assistance from the insurance companies will play a major component in getting your affairs back in order. The insurance adjuster has one mindset – pay you a little as possible to get you to sign a release.
Successfully dealing with this process are those who can find an attorney who will take on the responsibility of getting their clients car fixed and properly adjusted or replace if required, dealing with doctors or other medical providers to verify you get the treatment you need and lastly how it will get paid – either med pay (part of your automobile policy) or your medical insurance.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Is it worth it to pay an Attorney and/or Mediator?
Should I hire an attorney and/or mediator?
One of the biggest – and most often cited – expenses related to litigation, divorce and/or contested judicial matters is the attorney and/or mediator. There is a perpetual debate over the value of services provided by professionals, attorney and/or mediator. In the legal practice this controversy is sometimes confronted head-on by judicial system itself. After all, going “pro se” (individuals representing themselves) requires greater resources to be allocated by the State and Federal Government than individuals or businesses with the assistance of legal counsel who can navigate their way throughout the process.
In this blog we’ll examine the underlying factors that come into play when involved in a lawsuit, litigation or general dispute with – or without – an attorney and/or mediator, so that you can make your own informed decisions about the subject. After all, it’s your money, your property, your children or the like and most of all your choice.
Representing yourself, or “pro se” is worthy of consideration, and can save you an initial expenditure of funds to hire an attorney but you must consider not just the present but your future obligations both direct and indirect. To represent yourself, you will need to understand the legal and judicial process, and let alone the laws and statutes they may impact your ability to obtain the relief that you are seeking. But many people decide to represent themselves instead of hiring attorneys and/or mediators during the initial process and only involve an attorney after the fact i.e. judgment had entered, and for that reason it is a reasonable and common practice to hire your advocate before the process potentially may impact your future advocates ability to undo what occurs during the initial proceedings.
You will be forced to deal with many issues when involved in litigation. There may be depositions, court dates, hearings, trials or a process you don’t know about, or an issue that you are too involved with to view with objective eyes. You might need experienced advice to assist you in examining your options when faced with a fork in the road. Without quick and professional resolution of these types of problems, you could face serious consequences, both financially and emotionally.
For these reasons, the most overlooked, underrated, and valuable justification for hiring an attorney and/or mediator is that it gives you the opportunity to negotiate through a professional, experienced, and emotionally objective third party who has your best interest in mind.
Because the attorney will be negotiating/advocating on your behalf, it is essential that you hire someone you can trust, communicate with, and rely upon. Many parties feel most confident when they are able to choose an attorney from their own community who understands their needs.
The decision to hire an attorney and/or mediator or go it alone as a “pro se” is a complicated and important one, and there are many variables to take into consideration.
If I can be of any assistance to you when your situation requires legal counsel please contact me mfasanojr@duffyandfasano.com. My name is Michael A. Fasano Jr. and I am with Duffy & Fasano, attorneys and counselors at law. I service the New Haven County area, Litchfield County Area with a focus on Waterbury, Litchfield and the beautiful Northwest Hills.
One of the biggest – and most often cited – expenses related to litigation, divorce and/or contested judicial matters is the attorney and/or mediator. There is a perpetual debate over the value of services provided by professionals, attorney and/or mediator. In the legal practice this controversy is sometimes confronted head-on by judicial system itself. After all, going “pro se” (individuals representing themselves) requires greater resources to be allocated by the State and Federal Government than individuals or businesses with the assistance of legal counsel who can navigate their way throughout the process.
In this blog we’ll examine the underlying factors that come into play when involved in a lawsuit, litigation or general dispute with – or without – an attorney and/or mediator, so that you can make your own informed decisions about the subject. After all, it’s your money, your property, your children or the like and most of all your choice.
Representing yourself, or “pro se” is worthy of consideration, and can save you an initial expenditure of funds to hire an attorney but you must consider not just the present but your future obligations both direct and indirect. To represent yourself, you will need to understand the legal and judicial process, and let alone the laws and statutes they may impact your ability to obtain the relief that you are seeking. But many people decide to represent themselves instead of hiring attorneys and/or mediators during the initial process and only involve an attorney after the fact i.e. judgment had entered, and for that reason it is a reasonable and common practice to hire your advocate before the process potentially may impact your future advocates ability to undo what occurs during the initial proceedings.
You will be forced to deal with many issues when involved in litigation. There may be depositions, court dates, hearings, trials or a process you don’t know about, or an issue that you are too involved with to view with objective eyes. You might need experienced advice to assist you in examining your options when faced with a fork in the road. Without quick and professional resolution of these types of problems, you could face serious consequences, both financially and emotionally.
For these reasons, the most overlooked, underrated, and valuable justification for hiring an attorney and/or mediator is that it gives you the opportunity to negotiate through a professional, experienced, and emotionally objective third party who has your best interest in mind.
Because the attorney will be negotiating/advocating on your behalf, it is essential that you hire someone you can trust, communicate with, and rely upon. Many parties feel most confident when they are able to choose an attorney from their own community who understands their needs.
The decision to hire an attorney and/or mediator or go it alone as a “pro se” is a complicated and important one, and there are many variables to take into consideration.
If I can be of any assistance to you when your situation requires legal counsel please contact me mfasanojr@duffyandfasano.com. My name is Michael A. Fasano Jr. and I am with Duffy & Fasano, attorneys and counselors at law. I service the New Haven County area, Litchfield County Area with a focus on Waterbury, Litchfield and the beautiful Northwest Hills.
Lawyer Joke
Give the Lawyer a Hand
A young trial lawyer was defending a man accused of burglary, known for being witty (and the judge knows this) tried yet another one of his creative defenses. The judge, while not known for having a sense of humor, decided to hear the young lawyer out. “While my client admits he did, in fact, reach his arm into the window and removed a few trifling articles. However his arm is not himself, and I fail to see how you can punish the whole individual for an offense committed by just his limb.” “Well put,” the judge replied. “Using your logic, I sentence the defendant’s arm to one year’s imprisonment. He can accompany it or not, as he so chooses.” The defendant smiled. With his lawyer’s assistance he detached his artificial limb, laid it on the bench, and walked out.
A young trial lawyer was defending a man accused of burglary, known for being witty (and the judge knows this) tried yet another one of his creative defenses. The judge, while not known for having a sense of humor, decided to hear the young lawyer out. “While my client admits he did, in fact, reach his arm into the window and removed a few trifling articles. However his arm is not himself, and I fail to see how you can punish the whole individual for an offense committed by just his limb.” “Well put,” the judge replied. “Using your logic, I sentence the defendant’s arm to one year’s imprisonment. He can accompany it or not, as he so chooses.” The defendant smiled. With his lawyer’s assistance he detached his artificial limb, laid it on the bench, and walked out.
Talking and driving? Go hands-free or pay up – maybe?
Talking On a Cell Phone in a Car without also using a Hands-free device
Connecticut’s cell phone prohibition law, making it a ticketable moving violation to drive a car while talking on a cell phone without also using a hands-free accessory. Connecticut General Statute Section 14-296aa. entitled: “Use of hand-held mobile telephones and mobile electronic devices by motor vehicle operators and school bus drivers, prohibited or restricted, when. Penalties,” governs the use of telephones in automobiles.
Driving down the road every day, whether heading to court, home or on an errand I can’t help but see all of the people on the road using their cell phones in clear violation of this statute. The funny part about it is that some of these drivers enjoy the speakerphone option of their new high tech phone, of course while holding it in their hand. I have not heard about a major crackdown or let alone enforcement of this law but that does not mean it cant or wont occur if you are pulled over for some other motor vehicle violation or other cause. Specifically, the law states: “(2) "Using" or "use" means holding a hand-held mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.”
On most days it’s hard not to notice a police officer, bus driver or other emergency type vehicle driving past you while attached to their cell phone. Are we going to enforce this or just let it go by the wayside? I am not privy to the studies that I am sure having been conducted linking use of a cell phone to increased accident or the like. What is the point of this law if the ones used to enforce it also decide to violate its terms? I have often thought to take my digital camera with me to document these types of acts because I am certain this type of behavior would be denied by the offending officer, bus driver, Emergency technician or just general driver.
On that same note should we ban those individual reading a newspaper or book while driving? Is putting on makeup been banned yet? I have not heard of this specific law yet but is that something else our state should consider as not appropriate to conduct while driving? Have there been studies linking listening to you radio or CD’s in your car to increased number of accidents?
I think it is wise to have this law in effect but a little enforcement would be nice. I know that at depositions or at trial for personal injury cases these are the types of issues raised to discredit the injured parties in an attempt to reallocate blame their way. Watch who you talk to while you drive especially without a handsfree device.
Connecticut’s cell phone prohibition law, making it a ticketable moving violation to drive a car while talking on a cell phone without also using a hands-free accessory. Connecticut General Statute Section 14-296aa. entitled: “Use of hand-held mobile telephones and mobile electronic devices by motor vehicle operators and school bus drivers, prohibited or restricted, when. Penalties,” governs the use of telephones in automobiles.
Driving down the road every day, whether heading to court, home or on an errand I can’t help but see all of the people on the road using their cell phones in clear violation of this statute. The funny part about it is that some of these drivers enjoy the speakerphone option of their new high tech phone, of course while holding it in their hand. I have not heard about a major crackdown or let alone enforcement of this law but that does not mean it cant or wont occur if you are pulled over for some other motor vehicle violation or other cause. Specifically, the law states: “(2) "Using" or "use" means holding a hand-held mobile telephone to, or in the immediate proximity of, the user's ear.”
On most days it’s hard not to notice a police officer, bus driver or other emergency type vehicle driving past you while attached to their cell phone. Are we going to enforce this or just let it go by the wayside? I am not privy to the studies that I am sure having been conducted linking use of a cell phone to increased accident or the like. What is the point of this law if the ones used to enforce it also decide to violate its terms? I have often thought to take my digital camera with me to document these types of acts because I am certain this type of behavior would be denied by the offending officer, bus driver, Emergency technician or just general driver.
On that same note should we ban those individual reading a newspaper or book while driving? Is putting on makeup been banned yet? I have not heard of this specific law yet but is that something else our state should consider as not appropriate to conduct while driving? Have there been studies linking listening to you radio or CD’s in your car to increased number of accidents?
I think it is wise to have this law in effect but a little enforcement would be nice. I know that at depositions or at trial for personal injury cases these are the types of issues raised to discredit the injured parties in an attempt to reallocate blame their way. Watch who you talk to while you drive especially without a handsfree device.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Don’t let your lawyer act like that
Six Mistakes Lawyers Make
This blog from the Maryland Divorce Legal Crier with their entry on March 25th entitled: “Don’t Try Your Divorce Case in Letters (Six Mistakes Lawyers Make)”. It is funny so go read it here.
Now do not let your lawyer act like that. Or be impressed when he or she does.
Posturing is expensive (and usually pointless)!
This blog from the Maryland Divorce Legal Crier with their entry on March 25th entitled: “Don’t Try Your Divorce Case in Letters (Six Mistakes Lawyers Make)”. It is funny so go read it here.
Now do not let your lawyer act like that. Or be impressed when he or she does.
Posturing is expensive (and usually pointless)!
Connecticut’s Conveyance Tax May Be Extended for Two Years
House Bill 5885 - Is Connecticut’s Conveyance Tax Increase Temporary?
The temporary fix to Connecticut’s financial problems may continue to be supplemented by the increased conveyance tax for both the State and local municipalities. A conveyance tax is imposed and collected based upon the sales price of the real property being sold. In Connecticut the conveyance tax is customarily paid by the seller at the time of the sale.
The increase in the conveyance tax was supposed to expire (sunset) July 1, 2007. A sunset gives lawmakers a chance to review laws and then after its review decide to continue them or not. Apparently, this increase shall not expire but continue for at least two more years at this rate.
If you are selling your home at a loss you may have to bring money to the closing table to pay this conveyance tax in addition to the other fees associated with the closing, including real estate commissions, attorneys fees etc. Conversely, a bank that acquires a property through the foreclosure process does not pay a conveyance tax on that foreclosed property. A conveyance tax is bourn only by a home seller regardless of the length of time the seller has owned the home.
The tax is calculated on the total sale price, not the equity or the profit that the seller makes. Every day at the closing table you can feel the stress that the homeowner, often bringing money to the closing table to avoid foreclosure or a high interest rate usually unexpected with that variable rate mortgage. Seniors in this state are being affected who live on a fixed income and need all of the equity that they have built over years of home ownership when it's time to sell their property.
Your home is one of your greatest investments and you don't want to see your equity going to a state government that continues to increase our taxes. Sunset the conveyance tax and hold the politicians to their word of a temporary increase and not a permanent increase disguised by temporary renewals of the tax.
The temporary fix to Connecticut’s financial problems may continue to be supplemented by the increased conveyance tax for both the State and local municipalities. A conveyance tax is imposed and collected based upon the sales price of the real property being sold. In Connecticut the conveyance tax is customarily paid by the seller at the time of the sale.
The increase in the conveyance tax was supposed to expire (sunset) July 1, 2007. A sunset gives lawmakers a chance to review laws and then after its review decide to continue them or not. Apparently, this increase shall not expire but continue for at least two more years at this rate.
If you are selling your home at a loss you may have to bring money to the closing table to pay this conveyance tax in addition to the other fees associated with the closing, including real estate commissions, attorneys fees etc. Conversely, a bank that acquires a property through the foreclosure process does not pay a conveyance tax on that foreclosed property. A conveyance tax is bourn only by a home seller regardless of the length of time the seller has owned the home.
The tax is calculated on the total sale price, not the equity or the profit that the seller makes. Every day at the closing table you can feel the stress that the homeowner, often bringing money to the closing table to avoid foreclosure or a high interest rate usually unexpected with that variable rate mortgage. Seniors in this state are being affected who live on a fixed income and need all of the equity that they have built over years of home ownership when it's time to sell their property.
Your home is one of your greatest investments and you don't want to see your equity going to a state government that continues to increase our taxes. Sunset the conveyance tax and hold the politicians to their word of a temporary increase and not a permanent increase disguised by temporary renewals of the tax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
