can full legal responsibility for an animal be transferred from apsca to a rescue group?

[Darrell]

Here is an example release form (designed to exclude from legal liability a student wishing to participate in sports at a particular university). This form apparently stands up in court. It seems to me that something similar could be written that would release the ASPCA and/or other humane societies and shelters from legal liability when a known to be aggressive animal is released to a legitimate rescue group, given that a proper and fully signed liability release document is implemented prior to said release.

http://www.eiu.edu/~gcounsel/releaseformdw.htm

Given this, I feel that laws should be passed that prevent any humane society or shelter from destroying any healthy animal deemed "aggressive" that a viable and proper rescue organization is willing to take with full liability sign-off.

NOTE: although this thread was inspired by the oreo thread, it is not intended that there be any carryover discussions pertaining to oreo in this thread. What is desired here is a discussion on whether the excuse of remaining legally liable for release of "aggressive" labeled dogs is just cause (or even valid) for euthanization of said dogs once proper liability release forms have been signed by a viable and proper rescue organization willing to take the dogs.

Understand that this is not a discussion of beliefs about what is right or wrong. Instead, it is a search for legal precedents which either affirm or deny claims of carry over legal liability following the signing of liability release forms. It is a challenge for both the members of this website and for the aspca itself to respond with facts.

[bobbie]

Any written Document relinquishing the animal to whomever, must state the liability of KNOWN Agression etc to the adoptee. All paper must be in duplicate or triplicate and signed by both partys involved. All stipulations of treament, Vet care and returning if unable to care for must be in writing as well as signed by party's involved. In the case of an agresssive animal situation I would suggest a Certified trainer be a clause with a follow up etc as well as a Notary Seal. Stipulations as to how the animal will be re-homed after signed statements by professional services such as caregiver, foster, Vets, Trainers etc are necessary in such cases. Hope this helps. Most aggressive dogs can be rehabilitated and all food agression issues solved as well as biting, lunging etc. This is a time consuming process but Highly achievable with the Right trainer thus a Certified trainer who does not use the riduculous fake hand food agression method in IMHO.There is a most effective method to replace the outdated fake hand used by shelters but only by a caregiver. Hugs bobbie

[Darrell]

bobbie:

Are you stating that said document would stand up in court and release the releasing shelter of all legal liability whatsoever for releasing a "aggressive" labeled dog to a legitimate rescue organization? And if your answer is yes, what is the basis for your answer?

[Barbara]

Darrell, I'm trying to research this, but I'm not able to answer the question whether a legal release would absolve the ASPCA of legal liability if they released a known aggressive dog to a secondary shelter. According to the NY State Dog Bite Law, the owner or keeper of the dog is exclusively legally/monetarily responsible for an aggressive dog, but I don't know how the law applies when an organization like ASPCA knowingly releases (even with a release document) an aggressive animal. This has to be totally different than a regular owner giving away an aggressive dog; when someone assumes new ownership, they assume legal liability. The ASPCA must be held to a different legal standard because they are a rescue organization. Actually, I hope the ASPCA will provide a bit of explanation on exactly what the liability laws are as they apply to their organization.

[Barbara]

Also, I suspect this may be an insurance issue. Does the ASPCA carry liability insurance to protect against disgruntled adopters? If they do, perhaps the insurance will not permit the transfer of any aggressive animal out of the ASPCA to any person or secondary location.

[Barbara]

Read my post again, Liddy. I said "person or secondary location", meaning a shelter. How do you know the ASPCA could relinquish responsibility for a known aggressive dog without facing legal/insurance liability issues ("no repercussions whatsoever")? Prove it. Cite your reference.

[Barbara]

You are hopeless, Liddy. Absolutely hopeless. I'd have better luck getting a cogent argument from my dog.

Anyway, back to the intelligent part of the thread. Darrell, I think this is a great topic.

[bams481]

Because you are NOT right. Again, I will repeat. I knew of a small animal welfare organization, that a friend of mine worked for to be more informative, and a situation of this exact nature happened. It was a Rottie, not a Pit. He was aggressive after abuse, all was tried and in the end, this small organization did indeed sign all papers needed and imputed all information needed to another organization to take the dog and all responsibility. The first place worked with her for a yr and the other a yr and a half. It was thought the dog was rehabilitated fully and was adopted to a family with 2 small children. The youngest was mauled and the parents went after the first organization that my friend worked at, the parents won, and the business went under because of it. Therefore, I know first hand, you are wrong.

[Barbara]

Why do you have to infect every thread like a staph infection? If you had something useful to contribute, Liddy, instead of constant dissemination of misinformation, I wouldn't bother. Anyway, you are right. I shouldn't bother responding to you.

[Darrell]

I sincerely hope that the aspca does not let insurance companies set its policys in regard to anti-cruelty and rescue of animals. If it does, heads should roll. Insurance companies should have no voice whatsoever in the fate of rescued abused animals. This isn't about profit margins; it's about saving abused animals. Insurance carriers can be changed and liability release forms can be drafted.

[Barbara]

I totally agree with you, Darrell, and I don't really believe that these decisions are made solely to retain insurance coverage, but I tend to think it plays into it in some way. I guess the fear is that if an improper adoption occurs (outside what is allowed by the carrier), insurance could be denied to the facility and they can't operate without insurance legally (Bobbie told me this). I also continue to wonder whether there are any laws specific to the ASPCA in this instance covering the transfer of aggressive dogs. I so wish they would address these issues in detail.

[Darrell]

barbara:


There's always lloyds of london.

[Barbara]

I thought they just insured actress' legs and stuff. LOL