Can The Court Decide If A Dog Is Dangerous?

By Amy E. Feldman

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- The West Virginia court just heard the case involving the benignly named "Tinkerbell," a pit bull who had apparently never bitten anyone before, bit an eight-year-old child during the course of play. Like many states, the law in West Virginia says: Upon satisfactory proof that [a] dog is vicious, or in the habit of biting people or animals, the judge may authorize the humane officer to cause such dog to be killed. The trial judge found that the owners weren't guilty of harboring a dangerous animal since Tinkerbell had no history of biting, but found the dog which was a pit bull, was dangerous and ordered the dog destroyed.

The Supreme Court of West Virginia disagreed, saying that they couldn't conclude the dog was dangerous because of just one bite, and while some states have breed-specific presumptions like states where a pit bull is presumed to be a vicious breed, West Virginia has no such breed-specific provision and so the judge couldn't rely on the breed to prove the dog's dangerous nature.

The court said it's up to the state lawmakers and not judges to define what is and what isn't considered dangerous. In West Virginia, Tinkerbell was spared. To find out the laws on vicious dogs in your state or municipality, you can go to dogsbite.org.