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.

[Darrell]

[bobbie]

Darrell Sweetie, Loyds of London is a credit worthy Business organization to inform other businesses of the net worth, credit worthiness, Yrs. in business, to obtain also High end credit line, etc which is used by other bussiness to obtain credit for inventory. I am a listed member for over 26 yrs.and only available to business inquirys by legitimate businesses. It does not apply in this situation. Hugs, bobbie,

[Darrell]

bobbie:

This is what I read in wikipedia:
"Businesses at Lloyd's
There are two classes of people and firms active at Lloyd's. The first are members or providers of capital, the second are agents, brokers, and other professionals who support the members, underwrite the risks, and represent outside customers (for example, individuals and companies seeking insurance, or insurance companies seeking reinsurance)."

But if you say so. Clearly I don't know either way.

[bobbie]

Darrell, U are corect as it shows clearly how lLoyds's works. I am on the receivieng end of their service providers, as well as Data Base for negotionable reinsurance
inquires. As well as business ratings to obtain said services. Hugs, bobbie

[Regina Dickerson]

I agree with you Darrell on the insurance policies.

[bobbie]

Hi Darrell, My basis is due to our forms on individualy cases as all are that and Do stand up in a Court of law. Thus I advised the Notary Seal in a condition such as this. Judges go by the Fully written aggrement. We have even taken back pets who were homed outside as to our documents stating inside only. Cats included. As Barbara suggested you can ask ASPCA. I would call the Court sytem in your area to ask the question to put your mind at ease. Judges Have to follow guidelines in all cases an Properly written documents are always honored. To be perfectly reasured, a legal document written by an attorrney will give confidence. Hope this helps. Hugs, bobbie

[Barbara]

Bobbie, I hope the ASPCA replies here concerning how the law applies for a rescue organization relinquishing ownership of a known aggressive dog to an outside party. I'd also like to find out whether they carry liability insurance and whether that affects their ability to transfer ownership.

[Darrell]

bobbie:

This is what I thought. Therefore the excuse of not being able to free itself from legal liability with a sign off by a legitimate secondary rescue organization appears to be false information. Given that, shelters including the aspca are needlessly killing many healthy animals that they literally condemn by their "aggressiveness" label. In situations where said secondary rescue organizations are willing and able to take over responsibility for "aggressive" animals held by primary rescue organizations such as the aspca and sign over full legal liability for so doing, I find it totally inexcusable to ignore the offer and to consequently destroy the animal.

This should not be the policy of any legitimate anti-cruelty rescue organization. It is unacceptable behavior for a "rescue" operation. Yet, what is one to do when there are so many animals being made homeless that there isn't room and food for even all of the healthy "non-aggressive" animals? And that's the bigger problem -- one that shelters can't control. Until society gets a handle on that problem, the one concerning the fate of "aggressive" animals is mainly academic.

[Barbara]

I still don't understand, if there were no impediments except a signed release, why the ASPCA would choose euthanasia over the transfer of the dog to another facility. Why would they ever choose to do that given this option? There has to be more to it.

[Darrell]

barbara:

There had better be. Otherwise, heads should roll -- especially when high profile cases are at stake.

[Barbara]

It just doesn't make sense; wouldn't it be easier to do the transfer especially in such a high profile case? I really want to reserve judgment until I hear the ASPCA's side re: the questions we have raised. If I get to hear the ASPCA's side.

[Darrell]

belles:

Clearly amazing things happen in courtrooms these days; so nothing can be certain. Yet, like you, I hope for positive outcomes from this mess. The more dogs saved, the better.

As to PetsAlive using this as a funds raising tool, I don't think I agree. I feel that they are just expressing the outrage that they feel at this time. Call it venting with criticism. And I find their criticism compelling. Max left a link in the oreo thread that I think everyone should read -- not to turn everyone against the aspca, but to see its weaknesses (from a viewpoint similar to how we view PETA). IMHO the aspca is due for an overhaul. The Oreo mess has exposed its flaws relative to its mission and pushed them into the limelight where all can see. Past achievements will not deflect the negative attention they will receive now.

In the public's mind, the Oreo question is not whether his expected quality of life was worth continuing as an aggressive animal in the opinion of the aspca or its consultants. Nor does it have anything to do with legal liabilities, should something bad happen after release from the aspca. It doesn't even have anything to do with how legitimate PetsAlive is as a rescue organization. The only question in the public mind is whether Oreo deserved the chance being offered by PetsAlive for whatever life could be made for him given his circumstances. And this case will be tried in the court of public opinion, from which comes all future funding.