Appeal by Solomon from an order under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, stipulating that: (1) her dog be destroyed; and (2) she pay all costs associated with the impoundment and destruction of the dog. Solomon only appealed the first part in the two part order.
Appeal dismissed. Based on the factual events, the Court could not conclude that grounds exist under the Act to reverse the finding of liability. The Court held that the appellant was aware of her dog’s tendency to bite and that a previous biting incident should have made her more vigilant about her dog. In addition, the appellant failed to comply with a court order requiring that the dog be controlled by leash when outside. In considering the sentence, the Court held that the order was within an acceptable range.
Source: Case Law
Topics: acceptable range of dispositionsappeal of sentencebreed specific legislationcivil proceedingdestroydisregard of orderdogeuthanizefitness of the sentencehearsay evidenceunfit.unreasonablewith necessary modification