February 26, 1993

 Honorable Kim Brimer
 Chairman
 Committee on Business & Industry
 Texas House of Representatives
 P.O. Box 2910
 Austin, Texas 78768-2910
                                               Letter Opinion No. 93-15

Re: The construction of a recently enacted statute which regulates the keeping
of "dangerous dogs"  (ID#  18042)
 

Dear Representative Brimer:

You have requested our opinion regarding the proper construction of a recently
enacted statute which regulates the keeping of "dangerous dogs." Section 822.041
of the Health and Safety Code provides:

(2)  "Dangerous dog" means a dog that:

(A)  makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and occurs
in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was
reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own; or

(B)  commits unprovoked acts in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog
was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving
the enclosure on its own and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe
that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person. [Emphasis
added.]

Specifically, you inquire whether an attack on another animal would satisfy
subsection (2)(B)'s requirement of an "unprovoked attack."

The terms of subsection (2)(A) can be satisfied only by an attack on a "person."
Subsection (2)(B) has no such limitation, however; it may be fulfilled by any
"unprovoked act" which thereby causes "a person" to fear that the dog will
attack him and cause him bodily injury. If subsection (2)(B) were restricted to
"unprovoked acts" on "persons," it would be essentially duplicative of
subsection (2)(A). Thus, both the plain language of subsection (2)(B) and our
natural reluctance to attribute to the legislature the enactment of a
meaningless statute demand the conclusion that the "unprovoked acts" referred to
in subsection (2)(B) may include attacks on nonhumans. Accordingly, it is our
opinion that a dog's attack on another animal may constitute an "unprovoked act"
for purposes of section 822.041.

S U M M A R Y

A dog's commission of an unprovoked act against another animal may be sufficient
to satisfy the definition of "dangerous dog" under section 822.041 of the Health
and Safety Code so long as the attack causes "a person to reasonably believe
that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person."

Yours very truly,

Rick Gilpin
Deputy Chief
Opinion Committee

LO-
ID# 18042
LCL

Return to Wolfdog issues - Texas

Return to Wolfdog issues by State

Return to Main Page