Source: http://animallaw.info/articles/ddusferalcat2010.htm
Timestamp: 2014-04-24 16:22:22
Document Index: 61692175

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 22', '§ 8217', '§ 3907', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 42', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 14', '§ 37', '§ 42', '§ 3']

Detailed Discussion of Feral Cat Legal Issues
To understand the varying approaches taken by each state, it is instructive to look at those states that authorize local governments to enact ordinances regulating feral cat ownership. Connecticut allows municipalities to require feral cat “keepers” to register with the local animal control officer. C. G. S. A. § 22-339d. The statute defines a “keeper” as “any person or organization, harboring, regularly feeding or having in his or its possession any feral cat.” The law further clarifies that an individual is more likely to qualify as a “keeper” if she attempts to prevent an animal control officer from impounding feral cats. After registering with the municipality, the feral cat keeper must vaccinate and sterilize the cats in her care. Finally, the statute permits local municipalities to enact separate ordinances prohibiting cat owners—including feral cat keepers—from “substantially damag[ing] property” or “caus[ing] an unsanitary, dangerous or unreasonably offensive condition.” Id. Similarly, Delaware defines a “keeper” of a stray cat as any person who has possession of or control over the animal and has fed the cat for three or more consecutive days. 3 Del. C. § 8217. The statute further defines “keepers” as “owners.” Id. Maine’s animal welfare law is structured in much the same way, although it requires an individual to feed an animal for ten consecutive days before she becomes a “keeper” and, by extension, an owner. 7 M.R.S.A. § 3907. Like Connecticut, Delaware, and Maine, Rhode Island states that any individual “who permits a cat to habitually be or remain on or be lodged or fed within such person’s property or premises” qualifies as an owner. RI ST § 4-22-2. Further, the statute provides that “any refusal to permit any animal control officer to impound such cat shall be deemed evidence of ownership . . . .” Id. Rhode Island then allows local governments to implement permitting requirements for feral cat caretakers. RI ST § 4-24-3.
Part of the difficulty in determining the default state of the law in the absence of a feral cat statute or ordinance arises from the fact that there are very few court decisions addressing issues related to feral cats. Of the judicial opinions written, most of them involve interpretations of feral cat ordinances—like the one at issue in Baker—further complicating the question of what happens when no such law exists. However, at least two sources, the Baylor Law Review article and Baker,indicate that courts and juries may be unwilling to afford protection to feral cats or assign responsibilities to their caretakers when those rights and responsibilities have not been explicitly outlined by a statute or local ordinance. It is possible, then, that individuals who care for feral cats in these jurisdictions would not be required to comply with any of the requirements imposed on animal owners, nor would they be liable for any damages caused by the animals’ behavior. Further, feral cat caretakers in these jurisdictions may have a difficult time protecting feral cat colonies from animal control agencies and the actions of private citizens.
According to one source, the law in Texas prohibiting cruelty to animals did not specifically protect feral cats until 2007. Jeremy Masten, Note, Don’t Feed the Animals: Queso’s Law and How the Texas Legislature Abandoned Stray Animals, a Comment on H.B.2328 and the New Tex. Penal Code § 42.092, 60 Baylor L. Rev. 964, 973–74 (Fall 2008). As a result, many criminal defendants who were arrested on animal cruelty charges were acquitted because their alleged crimes had been committed against feral animals. Arguably, the Texas statute already protected feral cats, since it protected “domesticated animals.” However, the failure to explicitly include feral animals in the definition of domesticated animals apparently compelled an interpretation—at least in the minds of many jurors and legislators—that those animals were excluded from the law's protection. See id. at 966–67.
A further problem is the relatively limited degree of control exercised by the defendant in Baker. The caretaker in that case merely fed and watered the cats. She did not provide shelter or veterinary care, and she never relocated or confined the animals. The question, then, is what will a court in a common law jurisdiction do when faced with a feral cat keeper or caretaker who has exhibited greater evidence of ownership than the defendant in Baker?
Feral cats do not fit neatly within the common law categories of animal ownership. The first problem is the question of whether feral cats are wild or domestic animals. “A wild animal is an animal that belongs to a category of animals that have not been generally domesticated and that are likely, unless restrained, to cause personal injury.” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm § 22(b) (2005). An animal is feral if it “[e]xist[s] in a wild or untamed state, either naturally or having returned to such a state from domestication.” The American Heritage Science Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin 2002). Feral domestic cats would almost certainly not be considered wild animals, since domestic cats have, by definition, been generally domesticated and are generally unlikely to cause personal injury. However, it is possible that individual members of a domestic species could be considered wild if those individual animals have not been domesticated. David Favre & Murray Loring, Animal Law 8 (1983). If an animal has never been owned or directly cared for by any human, then it may be classified as wild even if it is a member of a domesticated species. See id. at 10. So while feral cats are part of a domesticated species, it is possible that a court might find that specific feral cats qualify as wild animals, which would subject their owners and keepers to different requirements than owners and keepers of domestic cats. The most significant responsibility would be the imposition of strict liability on keepers and caretakers of feral cats in jurisdictions where keepers and caretakers are considered “owners.” See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm § 22(a) (2005). The fact that classifying feral cats as wild animals would expose feral cat caretakers to strict liability would probably make a court less likely to find a feral cat to be a wild animal. The policy rationale supporting strict liability is that a wild animal is so inherently dangerous that the burden should be on the owner, who made a conscious decision to possess the animal, to control the animal at all times. See David Favre & Murray Loring, Animal Law 7 (1983); see also Eyrich v. Earl, 495 A.2d 1375, 1377 (N.J.Super. Ct. App. Div., 1985) (stating that keepers of wild animals are strictly liable). This rationale is less persuasive when applied to feral cats for two reasons. First, feral cats are members of the same species as domestic cats. In that sense, they are unlikely to pose a serious threat to humans, and any risk that they do pose is likely to be understood by the general public. See David Favre & Murray Loring, Animal Law 7 (1983). But see Allen v. Cox, 942 A.2d 296, 304 (Conn. 2008) (holding that when a cat's owner knows that the cat has a propensity to be violent, the owner may be liable for reasonably foreseeable injuries caused by the cat's aggressive behavior). Second, keepers and caretakers do not exercise the level of control over feral cats that owners of wild animals exercise over those animals. Owners of wild animals intentionally possess those animals, knowingly exposing themselves to the risks that a wild animal’s presence might pose to the local community. In contrast, keepers and caretakers usually care for feral cats where they find them, exercising a limited degree of control over the animals. These important distinctions would explain why some states have specifically excluded feral cats from their statutory definitions of “exotic” or “wild” animals. See, e.g., Exotic Mammal, Ind. Code § 14-8-2-87 (2009); Wild Mammals, Defined, Neb. Rev. St. § 37-246 (2008).
In one recent case, a California appellate court recently held that the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim, which was based on the defendants’ alleged failure to cease activity that resulted in the attraction of feral and domestic cats to the plaintiffs’ backyard, survived summary judgment. Kyles v. Great Oaks Interests, No. H028774, 2007 WL 495897 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2007). In Kyles, the plaintiffs were members of a family residing in a home located next to an apartment complex. Upon moving into the home, the family noticed that many domestic and feral cats were frequently coming onto their property, and the cats had been defecating and urinating in the plaintiffs’ yard. Although the plaintiffs attempted to trap the cats and bring them to animal control, the animal shelter ultimately told the plaintiffs that the shelter did not have room to house any more cats. The cats continued to come to the plaintiffs’ yard, and the plaintiffs claimed that the cats were attracted due to the failure of the neighboring apartment complex to ensure that its tenants placed lids on the trash receptacles. The family brought suit against the apartment complex, the city, the county, and the garbage disposal company servicing the apartment complex, alleging, among other things, that attracting the cats constituted a nuisance. Id. at *1–4.
In jurisdictions where feral cat keepers or caretakers are considered the cats' legal owners, keepers and caretakers may also be liable for damage caused by feral cats to property or persons. The key question in either case is whether the owner has a duty to control the cat's behavior. Unless the cat has vicious tendencies that are known to the owner, a court is likely to find a duty only if the damages caused by the cat were reasonably foreseeable. The Tennessee Court of Appeals recently held that a cat's owner did not owe a duty to prevent her cat from trespassing on her neighbor's property. McElroy v. Carter, No. M2005-00414-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2805141, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2006). The cat allegedly scratched the paint on the neighbor's truck, but because this kind of property damage was not reasonably foreseeable, the court held that the owner was not liable for any damages that her cat may have caused. Id.
Determining when a feral cat caretaker may be criminally liable is a complex issue that has not been extensively addressed. One commentator who has analyzed the issue in Texas raised the possibility that an individual who cares for a feral cat could be held criminally liable for abandonment if that individual ceased to provide the cat with food and water or failed to pay for the cat’s necessary medical treatment. See generally Jeremy Masten, Note, Don’t Feed the Animals: Queso’s Law and How the Texas Legislature Abandoned Stray Animals, a Comment on H.B.2328 and the New Tex. Penal Code § 42.092, 60 Baylor L. Rev. 964 (Fall 2008). In 2007, the Texas legislature amended its animal protection statute to include feral cats and dogs in the statute’s definition of “animal.” This amendment was passed in response to several instances in which juries acquitted defendants who were accused of cruelty to feral animals because feral animals were not explicitly protected by the state’s animal cruelty statute. Id. at 973–74, 966.
Similarly, some states classify feral cat caretakers as “owners” and further require owners to spay and neuter their pets or immunize them against rabies. Thus, feral cat caretakers could be subjected to the same fines and citations as other animal owners if they fail to comply with these laws. Virginia’s comprehensive animal statute is a clear illustration of how a caretaker might be exposed to criminal liability for failure to comply with registration and spay/neuter requirements. The statute explicitly includes feral cats in its definition of “companion animal.” Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6500. The statute further defines an animal’s owner as anyone who “(i) has a right of property in an animal; (ii) keeps or harbors an animal; (iii) has an animal in his care; or (iv) acts as a custodian of an animal.” Id. Given the status of feral cats as “companion animals,” anyone who provides food, water, or shelter to a feral cat would almost certainly fall under Virginia’s definition of an “owner.”