Weird State Laws Safeguard Salamanders and Seaweed WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?
Ignorance about the law is usually not a defense if you’re caught in a violation. Some oddball state laws, however, are so strange that they could only be described as booby traps for the unknowing. Here are two legislative oddities sure to surprise any hapless offender. 76 Salamanders A popular YouTube commentator has called out the state of Illinois for barring anyone from owning more than 75 salamanders. Why? Several salamander species are classified as endangered in Illinois, and the state regulates the commercial trade of these amphibians. The law assumes any resident who possesses salamanders valued at $600 or more intends to market them commercially — illegally. The law estimates the value of a salamander at $5, suggesting it actually prohibits owning 120 salamanders. But who’s counting? Nighttime Seaweed From the annals of lawmaking history, a 1973 New Hampshire law banned any effort to “carry away or collect for the purpose of carrying away any seaweed … between evening and daylight.” The backstory: Farmers in New Hampshire once collected seaweed from the beaches to use as fertilizer, leading at least one town to ban
nighttime harvesting to “give everyone an equal chance” at stocking up on seaweed. However, after a group of high school students singled out the law as the state’s dumbest, lawmakers repealed it in 2016. Not all states with stupid laws are culpable. Internet jokesters questioned South Dakota about a law supposedly barring people from falling asleep in a cheese factory. The actual law makes a lot more sense: It bans setting up your bedroom in a space used to prepare food for the public. Noting the error, a Sioux Falls radio station, Hot 104.7, fired back at critics, creating their own new category of missteps: “Stupid questions people ask about South Dakota.” Fair enough!
Who Let the Dogs Out?
Explaining Strict Liability in Dog Bite Cases
What is strict liability? According to Florida Statute 767.04, the owner of a dog that bites a person, whether in a public or private place, is liable for damages, regardless of whether the dog has displayed vicious behavior before the incident. There are exceptions to this, of course. One, if a dog bites an uninvited person (expressed or implied) on private property, the owner may not be liable. Second, if the owner’s property displays a legible sign featuring the words “Bad Dog,” they may not be liable. Lastly, if the person attacked, goaded, or abused the dog, the owner may not be liable. However, none of these exceptions apply if the victim is under 6 years old. Dog Sitters In the immortal words of the Baha Men, “Who let the dogs out?” If a dog owner has
someone watch their dog, and that dog then attacks someone under the sitter’s watch, the dog sitter could share liability for those damages. This would be an example of comparative negligence, where the dog sitter and dog owner could each share 50% responsibility and, therefore, each be liable for 50% of the damages. Canine Collections When a dog bite victim takes the dog owner to court, one of the biggest difficulties they face is collecting damages. Some homeowner’s insurance policies cover dog bites — although they are sometimes subject to exclusions based on the breed of the dog in question — but the amount they pay out may not always match or exceed the plaintiff’s desired damages.
Did you know that dog bites put 600 Floridians in the hospital each year? Since Florida is a strict liability state, hundreds of dog owners are likely on the hook for substantial damages. Dog bite cases are common in Florida, but determining blame is often less complicated than collecting damages. Here is the rundown on how dog bite cases are handled in Florida.
2 • www.AttorneyShapiro.com
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator