CC PACKET 07142020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 8 of 35 Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial bodily harm" has the meaning given it under section 609.02, subdivision 7a. Minnesota Statute 609.02, subdivision 7a. Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member. The first potential definition of dangerous dog is that the dog inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being without provocation. The bite was superficial and required no medical treatment. It is not “substantial disfigurement” and did not cause a “substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ” and did not cause any “fractures of any bodily member.” The second potential definition involves other domestic animals, which is not applicable as no other domestic animals were involved. The third potential definition requires that the dog already be found to be a potentially dangerous dog and thereafter the dog “aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.” What is clear from this statute is that not every bite will automatically result in a dog being properly declared to be a dangerous dog. Rather, it is only as the result of an aggressive bite. Words have meaning and if it were not to mean there was an additional requirement, it would just say after the dog bites someone rather than adding the qualifier of it being an aggressive bite. A quote from a 2014 article published in the Minnesota Bench and Bar, a magazine for lawyers, titled “Every Dog Has Its Day – In Court” is as follows: “Here in Minnesota, a dog that bites or attacks a person or other animal is not automatically considered dangerous, or even potentially dangerous. The determination is based upon ow aggressive the dog’s conduct is, where the bite or attack occurred (private versus public property), and whether the bite or attack was provoked.” See Exhibit 6. Neither aggression nor “aggressively bites” is defined in the dangerous dog statutes or in the St. Anthony Code. Thus, in construing the statutes, the words are to be construed accordingly to their common and approved sage, but technical words and phrases as have acquired a special meaning are construed according to special meaning or their definition. Minn. Stat. 645.08. In the world of animal behavior, aggression has a specific, technical meaning that is separate and apart from reactive. In brief, a leash reactive dog overly reacts to certain stimulus that frightens it, usually by lunging or jumping as a result of only the “fight” and not the “flight” response being available since the dog is on a leash. A reactive dog is not intending harm to anyone but the behaviors of a reactive dog may include quick bites. On the other hand, an aggressive dog is one that is has aggressive tendencies, and is routinely snarling and/or trying to bite others in various circumstances. There are many articles discussing the difference, including the one enclosed. See Exhibit 7. Based on the fact that Detective Rushton was not going to issue a dangerous dog letter until he discovered there was an existing potentially dangerous dog letter involving Hammerheart, it is apparent that the third 24