Opinion ID: 2808901
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Errors of Fact and Law

Text: 1. The Circuit Court’s Breed-Specific Presumption The circuit court’s two orders made factual findings that “Pit Bull Terriers are inherently vicious and aggressive dogs” and that “there is a presumption that pit-bull 17 terrier breeds are dangerous, aggressive, a public health hazard and are unpredictable in nature.” The Blatts assert that this “breed-specific bias is improper and against the applicable statutes and case law of the State of West Virginia.” The State argues that the circuit court’s presumption is not clearly erroneous. We agree with the Blatts. In making its breed-specific findings, the circuit court relied on the fact that this Court affirmed in a memorandum decision an order from the circuit court recognizing such a presumption. The circuit court also relied on the fact that other jurisdictions have adopted breed-specific presumptions. The memorandum decision of this Court described by the circuit court is Hardwick v. Town of Ceredo, No. 11-1048, 2013 WL 149628 (W. Va. 2013) (memorandum decision). In that case, the petitioners appealed their convictions for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting ownership of pit bull terriers within the Town of Ceredo. The petitioners argued that “the ordinance assumes a dog to be vicious based merely upon its breed without any further evidence,” Hardwick, at , and they argued that this made the ordinance unconstitutional. The circuit court’s order concluded that the ordinance was a legitimate exercise of the City’s police powers, finding: That each Defendant’s dogs are of the breed that is typically referred to generically as pit bull dogs which are aggressive by nature, have been known as attack animals with strong massive heads and jaws, and have been found to represent a public health hazard. The majority of jurisdictions have accepted the proposition that dogs of this type have a 18 propensity to be aggressive and attack without provocation and it is well established that such dogs have gotten a lot of notoriety as being dangerous to public health and safety. Id. at . This Court affirmed the petitioners’ convictions, adopting the circuit court’s order. Upon our review of Hardwick, we find that it does not support the circuit court’s adoption of a presumption that pit bull breeds are inherently vicious or dangerous under W. Va. Code § 19-20-20. First, the legislation challenged in Hardwick was a city ordinance of the Town of Ceredo. The ordinance itself created the presumption regarding the nature of pit bull breeds; it was not a judicially created presumption. Second, this Court, in deciding Hardwick, did not address a breed-specific presumption outside of the context of the particular ordinance at issue. Third, the ordinance did not speak to the traits described in W. Va. Code § 19-20-20: dangerousness, viciousness, or being in the habit of biting or attacking other people or dogs. The ordinance spoke only to the aggressiveness of pit bull breeds. Hardwick simply does not support the circuit court’s finding that pit bull breeds are, as a matter of law, inherently vicious or dangerous within the context of W. Va. Code § 19-20-20. More importantly, Hardwick does not stand as authority that a specific dog is dangerous, vicious, or in the habit of biting or attacking. To further support adopting a breed-specific presumption, the circuit court also relied on a finding that “[c]ourts in Maryland, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, [and] 19 Kansas have found that the breed of dog known commonly as a pit-bull terrier is dangerous and aggressive and are unpredictable in nature, and present a unique public health hazard.” The circuit court does not cite to any specific statutes or case law from these jurisdictions to support its point. With regard to authority from other jurisdictions, we have said that “cases referred to from other jurisdictions . . . are, of course, not of controlling force or effect or binding in authority upon this Court. They are, however, entitled to great respect and should be regarded as persuasive authority.” Burless v. W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc., 215 W. Va. 765, 774 n.9, 601 S.E.2d 85, 94 n.9 (2004) (quoting Edlis, Inc. v. Miller, 132 W. Va. 147, 167, 51 S.E.2d 132, 141–42 (1948)). With this in mind, we have examined the relevant law in the jurisdictions mentioned by the circuit court, and we find that it does not support the circuit court’s adoption of a breed-specific presumption. In Maryland, the Court of Appeals has said with regard to pit bulls, “the extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized.” Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc., 719 A.2d 119, 127 (Md. 1998) (determining liability in tort for a dog attack). However, in Maryland, the fact that a dog is of a certain breed, standing alone, cannot provide sufficient proof that a specific dog is dangerous. See Ward v. Hartley, 895 A.2d 1111, 1117 n.7 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006); McDonald v. Burgess, 255 A.2d 299, 303 (Md. 1969); Md. Code Ann., Cts. & 20 Jud. Proc. § 3-1901(b) (West 2014). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals has not applied any breed-specific presumption in determining whether a dog’s behavior warrants criminal action against an owner or the destruction of the dog. The Court of Appeals has recognized that the control or banning of pit bull breeds is accomplished pursuant to legislation. Matthews, 719 A.2d at 127 n.4 (“A number of states or municipalities, recognizing the unique danger pit bull dogs pose to their citizens, have enacted legislation that classify pit bull dogs as vicious, thus enabling them to control or ban this breed’s presence in their communities.”). Like Maryland, Kansas has only acknowledged the validity of breedspecific presumptions encapsulated within local ordinances. See Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 772 P.2d 758, 768 (Kan. 1989) (determining that a local ordinance containing a pit-bull-specific presumption did not violate the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights). In Alabama, the supreme court has held that in tort actions, “an owner or keeper of an animal will be charged with knowledge of the propensities of the breed of animal he or she owns.” Humphries v. Rice, 600 So. 2d 975, 978 (Ala. 1992). However, the Alabama court has not extended this to permit a presumption that a specific breed is “dangerous” for purposes of determining tort liability. See Gentle v. Pine Valley Apartments, 631 So. 2d 928, 932 (Ala. 1994) (citing favorably Lundy v. California 21 Realty, 170 Cal.App.3d 813, 216 Cal.Rptr. 575 (1985), which refused to take judicial notice that the German Shepherd Dog breed is inherently dangerous). As with Maryland and Kansas, Alabama’s supreme court has not applied a breed-specific presumption in determining whether a dog’s behavior warrants criminal action against an owner or the destruction of the dog. Florida and Pennsylvania are set apart from Maryland, Alabama, and Kansas in that Florida and Pennsylvania both have legislation that criminalizes the ownership of a dangerous dog when all of the elements of the crimes described in the relevant statutes are satisfied. Fla. Stat. § 767.13(2) (1994); 3 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 459-505-A (2008). However, neither the Florida Statutes nor the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes contain any provision providing that there is a presumption that particular breeds are dangerous. While the Florida judiciary has upheld ordinances containing presumptions regarding pit bull breeds, see, e.g., State v. Peters, 534 So. 2d 760 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988), these presumptions have not been applied to the state’s dangerous dog legislation. In Pennsylvania, the Legislature has gone so far as to forbid the enactment of local ordinances that prohibit or limit specific dog breeds. 3 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 459-507-A(c) (2008) (“A local ordinance . . . may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog.” (in part)). In the realm of tort liability, Florida’s courts have explicitly refused to find that pit bull breeds are inherently vicious. See, e.g., Olave v. Howard, 547 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (“We are not prepared to say, as appellant requests, 22 that any dog with a trace of pit bull ancestry is under the law deemed vicious.” (quoting Bessent By & Through Bessent v. Matthews, 543 So. 2d 438, 439 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989))). In addition to examining the law in the jurisdictions referenced by the circuit court and determining that it does not support the adoption of a breed-specific presumption with regard to W. Va. Code § 19-20-20, we also find that it is pertinent to examine whether the language of W. Va. Code § 19-20-20 supports the presumption and whether the circuit court could take judicial notice of the presumption. Initially, we observe that W. Va. Code § 19-20-20 does not explicitly or implicitly provide for a breed-specific presumption. We have recognized that courts “are obliged not to add to statutes something the Legislature purposely omitted.” Williamson v. Greene, 200 W. Va. 421, 426, 490 S.E.2d 23, 28 (1997) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Banker v. Banker, 196 W. Va. 535, 546–47, 474 S.E.2d 465, 476–77 (1996)). By adding language to a statute omitted by the Legislature, the judiciary acts as a “superlegislature,” which is prohibited by the Constitution of West Virginia. State ex rel. Cnty. Court of Marion Cnty. v. Demus, 148 W. Va. 398, 401, 135 S.E.2d 352, 355 (1964) (“[T]he courts of this state are forbidden by [Article V of the West Virginia Constitution] to exercise legislative authority of any kind.”); see also syl. pt. 2, Huffman v. Goals Coal Co., 223 W. Va. 724, 679 S.E.2d 323 (2009) (“This Court does not sit as a superlegislature, 23 commissioned to pass upon the political, social, economic or scientific merits of statutes pertaining to proper subjects of legislation. It is the duty of the Legislature to consider facts, establish policy, and embody that policy in legislation. It is the duty of this Court to enforce legislation unless it runs afoul of the State or Federal Constitutions.”). Although a court may not read into a statute language purposefully omitted, courts of this state are not required to “insulate themselves from all knowledge of happenings and events in the world about them, and pretend ignorance to that which among the mass of citizens is common knowledge,” State ex rel. City of Charleston v. Sims, 132 W. Va. 826, 847, 54 S.E.2d 729, 741 (1949); they “may, and should, take notice . . . of current events of a public nature.” Id.; see also syl. pt. 3, Brown v. Bottom Creek Coal & Coke Co., 94 W. Va. 287, 118 S.E. 284 (1923) (“The courts of this state take judicial notice of the laws of the United States, and the proclamations of the President of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and of public notoriety or general public interest.”); Boggs v. Settle, 150 W. Va. 330, 338, 145 S.E.2d 446, 451 (1965) (“While courts are permitted to take judicial notice of certain facts, it is well settled that a trial judge is not permitted to base a finding upon facts which are merely matters of his personal knowledge . . . .”); Rider v. Cnty. Court of Braxton Cnty., 74 W. Va. 712, 722, 82 S.E. 1083, 1086 (1914) (Robinson, J., dissenting) (“That courts may take judicial notice of matters of common knowledge and current history . . . all will concede.”); Peyroux v. Howard, 32 U.S. 324, 342 (1833) (“It cannot certainly be laid 24 down as a universal, or even as a general proposition, that the court can judicially notice matters of fact. Yet it cannot be doubted, that there are many facts, particularly with respect to geographical positions, of such public notoriety, and the knowledge of which is to be derived from other sources than parol proof; which the court may judicially notice.”). Thus, for this Court to uphold the circuit court’s presumption regarding pit bull breeds, the presumption that pit bull breeds are inherently vicious and dangerous must be a matter of common knowledge. The inquiry into whether breed-specific presumptions are appropriate or justifiable has been the subject of numerous court cases and scholarly publications. Those opposing such presumptions argue that any dog, regardless of its breed, “can become dangerous under the right set of circumstances[; thus,] banning particular breeds will not achieve the result that communities desire—to reduce the number of dog bites and the injuries sustained from such bites.” Heather K. Pratt, Comment, Canine Profiling: Does Breed-Specific Legislation Take a Bite Out of Canine Crime?, 108 Penn. St. L. Rev. 855, 876 (2004) (footnote omitted). Others question whether “there [is] a rational relationship between public safety and subjecting dogs . . . to unusual restrictions based on their appearance [instead of] their behavior.” Swann, supra note 2, at 851. Those in favor of pit-bull-specific presumptions rely on what are “allegedly immutable pit bull 25 characteristics,” Id. at 852, tied to the breed’s “genetic constitution,” Id. at 835,8 or the fact that pit bulls were bred as fighting dogs. Id. at 841 (“Thanks to the perverse ingenuity of those who cultivated aggressiveness in the breed, the pit bull now epitomizes a paradox: man’s best friend turned natural enemy of humanity.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).9 Similar positions have been taken with regard to other breeds, 8 While there is research that “suggests genetics contribute to the likelihood a dog will exhibit aggression,” Swann, supra note 2, at 853, environmental and experiential factors may also contribute to the behavioral predispositions of different breeds. Id. at 853 & n.129; see also Nardi v. Gonzalez, 630 N.Y.S.2d 215, 217 (City Court of Yonkers N.Y. 1995) (suggesting that a German Shepherd dog, depending on training, can be a trusted guard dog or vicious). 9 Writer Devin Berstien has noted that pit bull breeds have been associated with a predisposition for aggression because they were originally bred as fighting dogs. Devin Burstein, Breed Specific Legislation: Unfair Prejudice & Ineffective Policy, 10 Animal L. 313, 325 (2004). However, Burstein asserts that “aggression toward humans was a trait despised by those breeding pit fighting dogs.” Id.; see also Hussain, supra note 2, at 2852–53 (“[B]ecause the human handler had to be in the fighting ring with the dog to hold it in its starting position and to separate fighting dogs if necessary, aggression towards humans was not tolerated.”). Additionally, we note that the perception of pit bull breeds has changed dramatically over time. In the early part of the twentieth century, pit bulls were considered the epitome of the all-American dog. The first war dog, Stubby, was a pit bull. Pete the Pup from “the Little Rascals” was an American Staffordshire Terrier, one of the three breeds comprising pit bulls. Teddy Roosevelt kept his pet pit bull in the White House. However, the pit bulls’ wholesome image was tarnished in the late 1980s after a series of highly publicized attacks. Extensive media coverage of severe attacks and deaths inflicted by pit bulls pushed public fear of the dogs to public hysteria, and their popularity (continued . . .) 26 including German Shepherds and Rotweillers. See Mcneely & Lindquist, infra Part