How accountable are dog owners for their animals&#39; actions? I realise that if I forget that the garage door is open and my dog gets out and bites someone I'm in big trouble. What would be the case if I'm sleeping in my house and someone breaks in and my dog kills the intruder before I'm even fully aware of what's happening? Can I be held accountable if it is considered not to be self-defense? Let's just assume for argument's sake that the dog in question has not received any attack training.
The law on such matters within the US varies from state to state. In general a dog owner is responsible for taking &quot;reasonable&quot; measures to control the dog and prevent harm. What measures are reasonable will depend on the detailed facts. particularly important will be the previous history and actions of the dog. If a dog has a history of attacking people, then the owner is expected to know this, and to take measures which are reasonable in light of that history. The page &quot;Strict Liability Dog-Bite Laws&quot; from Nolo documents states in which an owner may be responsible for any bite. As that page says: When a dog hurts someone, the injured person is likely to sue the animal's owner for medical costs and other damages. In more than half of the states, those lawsuits may be based on laws that make the owner automatically liable for most dog-bite injuries. These laws are often called &quot;strict liability&quot; statutes, because the injured person doesn't have to prove that the animal's owner knew the dog was dangerous (often called the &quot;one-bite rule&quot;) or that the dog owner was negligent (legalese for &quot;careless&quot;). That page goes on to say: Also, dog owners may have legal defenses to avoid liability for dog bites. Most dog-bite laws include exceptions—typically when the injured person was trespassing or provoked the dog. And many of the laws don't apply if the dog was performing its duties as a police dog when the bite happened. The page lists details on the laws for holding dog owners liable in the listed states under a &quot;strict liability&quot; theory. The page notes that even when one of the listed exceptions applies, so a strict-liability suit cannot be brought, a suit under a negligence theory (failure to take reasonable precautions) may still be possible. A plaintiff may cite both theories in a single suit where the law permits. The page lists 36 states and the District of Columbia as having some sort of strict liability statute for dog attacks as of December 2020. In a number of states that the person attacked was trespassing is considered an exception to the strict-liability rule. The page &quot;Brief Summary of Dog Bite Laws&quot; published by Michigan State University in 2004 says: Liability can be based on a common law theory of negligence of the owner where recovery is based on the action or lack of action by an animal owner /keeper. Common law is the law derived from court decisions and historical traditions rather than explicit statutory provisions. Recovery at law under this concept requires a showing by the injured party that there was a legal duty owed to the injured party by the animal owner /keeper and that the injury arose because of a breach of that duty. This duty can arise from a failing to properly secure an animal or entrusting the animal with someone unfit to restrain the animal. It can also arise independently from violating a local ordinance, such as those ordinances that prohibit dogs running at large or mandatory muzzling provisions. It has been said that one who keeps a vicious dog, with knowledge of its savage and vicious nature, is presumed to be negligent if he or she does not keep the animal secure from injuring others. ... States may also impose a more stringent standard of fault called strict liability . In those states, liability automatically arises when a domestic animal has a known vicious propensity attacks, bites, injures, or even chases someone. There is no necessity to show that the owner was negligent in his or her actions in proving liability. ( Click here for a summary of states that impose strict liability). In addition, owners may face liability based on the legal category of the dog him or herself. Nearly all states have some laws that govern what can be termed “dangerous dog” or “vicious dog” laws. These laws outline what constitutes a “dangerous dog” or even a “potentially dangerous dog” and under what circumstances an owner will be liable for the actions of such dogs. Moreover, some states impose what is called “strict liability” on dog owners for any injury resulting from a dog deemed dangerous regardless of any knowledge of the dog’s tendencies. These strict liability laws may also limit the ability of the owner to claim a defense to the action. In other words, the law may state that the owner is liable regardless of whether the person who was bitten was trespassing on the owner’s property or whether the owner knew the dog was vicious. Regardless of whether you are dealing with a strict liability state or not, provocation will be an important factual issue. Provocation simply refers to a situation where a dog is incited, encouraged, or provoked into biting a person. In states where there is strict liability, an owner may use provocation as a defense to the dog bite. This will either reduce the owner's liability based in part (comparative or contributory negligence on the part of the victim) or bar the victim's claim completely. A court will either determine provocation from the perspective of the injured party (i.e., did the person intend to provoke the animal or have knowledge that his or her actions would provoke the animal) or from the perspective of the dog. The page &quot;State Dog Bite Laws: &quot;One-Bite&quot; vs. Strict Liability&quot; from AllLaw says: Prior to the twentieth century, a dog owner was usually only held liable for injuries when their dog bit someone if the owner had reason to know the dog might bite. This was known as the &quot;one bite&quot; rule because it generally meant that a dog was allowed &quot;one free bite&quot; before the owner would face legal trouble. In modern times, the one bite rule does not necessarily allow a dog one free bite. If an owner knows the particular breed is dangerous, or if the particular dog might be prone to biting because of its general character or some other factor, he or she could face liability for the dog's first bite. The focus is on whether the owner knew or should have known that the dog might bite, and whether the owner took reasonable precautions based on that knowledge. For example, if a relatively aggressive dog recently underwent surgery and the owner did not warn a house guest not to pet the dog, the owner might be held liable if the house guest is subsequently bitten. As a fault concept, the &quot;one bite&quot; rule has much in common with (and often overlaps) the personal injury liability rule of negligence. Many states have enacted &quot;dog bite&quot; statutes that create a form of &quot;strict liability&quot; for dog bites. Strict liability means that the defendant is held liable if a certain event occurs, regardless of whether the defendant could have done anything to prevent the event. The typical strict liability dog bite statute says that a dog owner is liable if his or her dog bites someone, regardless of whether the owner did anything wrong, as long as the injured person: was not trespassing or otherwise breaking the law at the time of the incident, and did not provoke the dog. If a strict liability dog bite statute applies, what the owner did or did not know about the dog prior to the bite is usually irrelevant. Note that strict liability dog bite statutes are not the same in every state that has one of these laws on the books. ... In short, the particular law of the state or locality, and the particular facts of the case will both be important in the case of any dog attack. By the way, nothing an animal does on its own can be classed as self-defense, although where a human orders an animal to attack that might be self-defense by the human (using the animal), depending on the facts. Actions that would have been self-defense by a human will probably not be grounds for finding an animal's owner liable.
There is a good amount of case law addressing this question going back two centuries. Legally, as soon as you are subject to "excessive force," you are allowed to defend yourself as you would against any assault, even if that force is being used in the course of an otherwise lawful arrest. Furthermore, in some states you are still allowed to resist unlawful arrest. Unfortunately, the matter is no longer as clear as it used to be. (There is a lot of material on this subject; just search for resisting unlawful arrest.) For example, police reflexively invoke a virtual safe harbor by shouting, "Stop resisting!" while battering arrest subjects. Video evidence has uncovered a plethora of examples in which this was done to subjects who were not only not resisting, but even later determined to have been incapable of resisting. If you intend to defend yourself against police, even when justified by law, you need to realize that the system is stacked against you. Police carry the means of escalating to lethal force. So, for example, if you are being beaten but you are potentially able to physically overpower and restrain an officer, you will likely then be met with baton blows or tasers. Since a baton is a deadly weapon, you would be (in theory) justified in shooting an officer attacking you with one. But as soon as any officer shouts "gun!" you will be shot, and most likely killed. Police seem to be given the benefit of the doubt by prosecutors and grand juries when they claim, "I feared for my life." You (even if you survive) will likely have any such claim subject to a full criminal trial. So even though you can legally defend yourself against excessive police force, these days you will almost certainly be unable to in practice.
Generally, what you say you will do in a contract is what you must do - there is no "the dog ate my homework" excuse. For your examples: Employment contracts have so much government regulation that the common law contract is lost in the mists of time. It is unlikely that a court would interpret an employment contract as requiring exact timekeeping; it is also unlikely that the person would have worked exactly 38 hours on every week except the one where they worked 37.5. However, if it were proved that the employee owed 0.5 hours to the employer they could be required to provide it or refund the pay they had received, barring a law that changed this. The dog must be walked. Alice must find a substitute walker if she is unable to provide it. Falling sick is something foreseeable that Alice should have provided for either in the contract ("if I am sick I won't walk the dog") or by arranging for someone else to do it. For purely personal services, falling sick may frustrate the contract, however, dog-walking is probably not personal enough. There is a doctrine which allows termination by frustration where neither party is at fault, however, it is not clear that this would apply. The building burning down is foreseeable and could (should?) have been addressed in the contract. If the destruction of the building was without fault on the owner then the contract is frustrated. If there was some fault on the owner (smoking in bed, inoperative fire alarm etc.) and the cleaner stands willing, ready and able (that is able except for the absence of a building) to perform their obligations, the owner would probably be obliged to pay, at the least for unrecoverable costs (e.g. wages) and loss of profits - if they pay for the cleaning products the cleaner would be obliged to deliver them up. One of the main reasons for the length of contracts for non-trivial transactions is they deal with these contingencies.
user662852 has a good point -- whoever own the property has the right to make the rules. Is the property, land+construction in fact your's or does it belong to the HOA who just grant you access as a lease holder? Different states has different rules, but in my state it is illegal to maroon a property and there must be a access to public streets even when this necessitate passing over somebody else land. However that is irrelevant if the HOA owns the land your house is build on. I think you will have to look at your HOA agreement and see what it says.
In various states, you may shoot a dog attacking livestock or running at large (the latter possibly only in Indiana). In Ohio, ORC 955.28 allows shooting a dog that threatens (etc.) "livestock, poultry, other domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another person, except a cat or another dog". So in fact, dog against cat is specifically exempted. The Kentucky law allows shooting a dog that trespasses and attempt to harm livestock (not cats). Texas has such a law, which says "A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed", if they witness the event. This law is not limited to livestock and does not specifically exclude cats.
Even before the police have any idea who did it, Bob is guilty of whatever wrong he did. However, if you want this to be a legal question and not a moral one, we should assume that you really want to know "Can Bob be convicted of murder, if the evidence proves that he did do it?". Yes, he can. See Morris v. State, 214 S.W.3d 159. The critical question was whether the defendant understood the charges (he did) and whether he could assist in his defense (he could). The desideratum of being able to assist in your own defense only goes so far. On the other hand, maybe no, per Wilson v. US. A government expert witness "testified that appellant had permanent retrograde amnesia and would not be able to aid in his own defense in terms of remembering any of the acts alleged in the indictment". The crucial difference seems to be whether one just has loss of memory, vs. loss of memory connected with some other mental disorder. [Addendum] Per Dusky v. United States 362 U.S. 402, competence to stand trial depends on whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding -- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. I am not aware of any exceptions e.g. whether this is not the case with strict liability crimes like statutory rape, and since it is generally held that "competency" is a requirement mandated by the due process clause, I don't think there could be an exception.
Although the assailant (or their estate if they are killed) could lodge a claim for damages it does not necessarily follow that they would win - they would have to show that the shooting was not legitimate self-defence but rather was unlawful by, for example, negligence or use of excessive force - say by shooting them when they didn't pose an immediate and unjustified threat. The Federation rules, as far as I can see, are not actual legislation. Although they should be adhered to in normal circumstances, this shooting would be, in the given circumstances, legitimate self-defence according to Article 122-5 of the Code Pénal which says: N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, devant une atteinte injustifiée envers elle-même ou autrui, accomplit, dans le même temps, un acte commandé par la nécessité de la légitime défense d'elle-même ou d'autrui, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens de défense employés et la gravité de l'atteinte. N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, pour interrompre l'exécution d'un crime ou d'un délit contre un bien, accomplit un acte de défense, autre qu'un homicide volontaire, lorsque cet acte est strictement nécessaire au but poursuivi dès lors que les moyens employés sont proportionnés à la gravité de l'infraction. Which Google translates to English as: The person who, in the face of an unjustified attack on himself or others, performs, at the same time, an act ordered by the necessity of the self-defense of himself or of others, is not criminally liable, except 'there is a disproportion between the means of defense employed and the seriousness of the infringement. The person who, in order to interrupt the execution of a crime or an offense against property, performs an act of defense, other than intentional homicide, when this act is strictly necessary for the aim pursued, is not criminally liable. provided that the means employed are proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
There is a defense of provocation This doesn’t apply in this instance because the provocation must be such that it would case a reasonable person to lose control. No reasonable person shoots a six year old.