Opinion ID: 2519623
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hearing Officer Properly Interpreted the Ordinance.

Text: West argues that the hearing officer improperly interpreted the ordinance guiding classification of level three animals. The relevant provision states:  Level three behavior is established if an animal, while under restraint, inflicts an aggressive bite or causes any physical injury to any human.  [21] West argues that the clause causes any physical injury to any human should be interpreted as requiring that the animal aggressively caused any physical injury. West relies on the statutory construction rule of ejusdem generis, which has been explained as follows: [W]hen a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same type as those listed. For example, in the phrase horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, or any other farm animal, the general language  or any other farm animal   despite its seeming breadth  would probably be held to include only four-legged, hoofed mammals typically found on farms, and thus would exclude chickens. [22] However, as the municipality notes, the language of AMC 17.40.020(A)(3) does not contain a list of specifics preceding the phrase or causes any physical injury. . . . Instead, only the specific act of an aggressive bite precedes or causes any physical injury to any human. We agree that this lack of a list means that ejusdem generis does not apply. Additionally, the plain meaning of the sentence is not ambiguous, and thus no statutory aids need apply. In Crump v. State [23] we clarified the role of ejusdem generis when we declined to apply the canon to a kidnapping statute: Ejusdem generis is not a rule of law, but rather an aid to the interpretation of statutes that are ambiguous or that leave unclear the legislative intent. Here ejusdem generis is not appropriate because the statute is not ambiguous. [24] Similarly, there is nothing about the wording of AMC 17.40.020(A)(3) that makes it ambiguous. The terms aggressive bite and physical injury are both defined in the ordinance. [25] Finally, it is grammatically incorrect to conclude that the word aggressive modifies any part of the phrase or causes any physical injury to any human. Reading level three classification as including any physical injury to any human also fits logically within the context of the classifications. The less-sanctioned level two behavior is established if an animal bites or causes physical injury to any domestic animal, or if an unrestrained animal kills any unrestrained domestic animal. [26] Thus, at level two, no injury to any human is contemplated. Similarly, level four behavior occurs when an unrestrained animal inflicts the same harm described in level three. [27] Level five behavior is established if [a]n animal, regardless of whether it is restrained, causes serious physical injury or the death of any human. . . . [28] As would be expected, levels four and five contemplate more serious behavior than occurred here, and level two contemplates less serious behavior. West argues that the hearing officer's interpretation could result in an animal's classification for injuries that it causes inadvertently. But the ordinance mitigates this risk by providing a list of nine exceptions to the classifications [29] including injury resulting from the animal acting out of pain, protecting its young, playing with the family that owns it, and a general exception for when [t]he decision not to classify reasonably serves and promotes justice, fairness, and the purposes and intent of this title, the protection of public health, safety and welfare, and the humane care and treatment of animals. [30] Given the plain meaning of AMC 17.40.020(A)(3), its context, and the exceptions to the classifications, the hearing officer properly interpreted the ordinance to apply to any physical injury to a human.