Tom Dickerson
Tom Dickerson is a trial attorney and co-founder of Dickerson Oxton, where he focuses on personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, and catastrophic injury litigation. Since launching the firm with Chelsea Oxton Dickerson in 2010, Tom has helped recover millions of dollars for injured clients through aggressive advocacy and courtroom experience. Known for his client-first approach, he is dedicated to standing up for individuals and families against insurance companies and large corporations.
Breed-specific legislation (BSL) that bans specific breeds of dogs exists throughout the United States. While there are no state-wide bans, many local and municipal-level laws prohibit residents from owning specific breeds defined by that area’s government as dangerous. Pitbull bans are a well-known form of BSL, and it is easy to understand why someone who has been bitten by a Pitbull may firmly believe that banning them is a good thing. However, many just as firmly believe that banning a dog based solely on its breed is unfair, arguing that any dog can bite and therefore, banning specific breeds does not protect anyone. Whether bans are fair or not, and whether a Pitbull or another breed bit you, the experienced dog bite attorneys with Dickerson Oxton may be able to assist you with gathering evidence, negotiating a settlement with the dog owner’s insurance, or filing a lawsuit and representing you in court. Call (816) 542-6599 to book an appointment and discuss your legal rights and options after being bitten by a dog.
What Are Pitbull Bans and Why Do They Exist?
Pitbull bans are a form of BSL that bans residents of a specified area from owning Pitbulls. The bans are intended to prevent dog bites by regulating the ownership of dog breeds deemed dangerous. While Pitbulls are one of the most common, other breeds have been banned as well, such as Rottweilers, wolf hybrids, and even German Shepherds. When a banned breed dog is found in an area with a ban, the dog can be seized and is often killed, unless the owner received an exemption that allowed them to own the dog. Exemptions are frequently only granted to residents who owned the banned breed before the ban took effect. The dog’s owner may face jail time and fines, and if the dog was discovered because it bit someone, they may also face a lawsuit.
The reasons these bans exist depend on the individual’s perspective of the ban. For those who believe in such bans, they exist for public safety by preventing dog bites due to the breed. They cite a Pitbull’s strength, agility, and stamina as making them particularly dangerous, and argue that they are genetically predisposed to be aggressive. When combined with improper care and training by the owner, this alleged genetic predisposition makes these dogs especially dangerous. However, those who disagree and believe the bans are unfair claim they exist due to community fears, amplified by media sensationalization when covering Pitbull attacks. They also state that these bans often base the determination of a dog’s breed on appearance rather than the dog’s genetics or behavior. They also point out that Pitbull is frequently used generically to describe many breeds that share similar traits (such as the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or American Bully), including the blocky head, muscular body, broad chest, and short coat.
Does Kansas City Have a Pitbull Ban?
Kansas City crosses the state line between Missouri and Kansas. This means that there are often different laws in different parts of the city, based on which state that part is located in.
Kansas City, Kansas
Kansas City, Kansas, did have a pitbull ban that took effect in 1990. After nearly thirty years, the city repealed the ban in 2019. There are currently no restrictions on owning a pitbull or any requirements that must be met.
Kansas City, Missouri
Kansas City, Missouri, also repealed the Pitbull ban that the city once had. However, there is one particular requirement that must be met for residents to own and keep a Pitbull. Under K.C., Mo. Ordinances ch. 14, § 14-60, all Pitbulls must be spayed or neutered. There are limited exceptions, such as puppies under eight weeks of age, show dogs, physical abnormalities that make it highly likely the dog would suffer serious injury or death, or the owner has applied for or obtained a permit to breed the dog.
Pros and Cons of Pitbull Bans
Pitbulls have a reputation for being dangerous, partly due to their history of being used in dogfighting. In fact, when dogfiting arrived in the United States, people crossbred several breeds to create the American Pit Bull. Today, RSMo § 578.025 makes dogfighting a Class E felony in Missouri. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6414 makes dogfighting in Kansas a misdemeanor or felony, depending on whether the individual is attending a dogfight, has dogfighting paraphernalia, or is engaging in dogfighting.
However, even when dogfighting is set aside, many debate the pros and cons of Pitbull bans. When deciding whether these bans are unfair, it is important to carefully consider both sides of the debate.
Pitbull Ban Pros
Proponents of these bans argue that they increase public safety by removing breeds with a perceived history of aggression, reducing attacks, and creating safer communities. They also say that they give residents a sense of security by knowing that more dangerous dogs are banned, so they do not have to worry about coming across those dogs when walking, playing, and otherwise interacting in their communities.
Another argument defenders of Pitbull bans make is that the bans discourage people from breeding and fighting Pitbulls; however, this argument is often easily refuted by pointing to the state statutes, which make dogfighting a crime. Defenders also argue that Pitbulls (or any particular breed banned) are genetically dangerous. They claim that these dogs were bred to fight to the death, and that their quick anger and tenacity make them significantly more dangerous than other breeds.
Pitbull Ban Cons
Those who believe Pitbull bans are unfair or ineffective cite numerous studies that indicate that laws targeting specific breeds do not improve public safety or reduce dog attacks or bites. They also argue that these bans punish responsible dog owners and do not address the root behavior of aggression, which is often neglectful or abusive ownership.
Another argument against these bans is the American Veterinary Medical Association’s statement that dangerous dogs are not determined by breed, but by other factors such as the dog’s individual history, general size, behavior, number of other dogs involved, and the vulnerability of the potential victim. Finally, those against the bans argue that they divert resources from more effective public safety and animal control initiatives, and that criminals and irresponsible owners simply switch from the banned breed to other breeds that are not banned.
Why One-Bite Rules May Not Apply to Banned Breed Bites
Many states, such as Kansas, have what is often referred to as a “one-bite” rule. This rule generally requires dog owners to know their dog’s dangerous tendencies before being held liable for a bite. In other words, the first time the dog bites someone, the owner may not be legally liable, as the dog was assumed not to be aggressive until it bit. Missouri is a strict liability state, meaning if a dog bites for the first time, the owner is held liable, regardless of breed. If you have been bitten by a dog, whether a banned breed or not, an experienced dog bite attorney at Dickerson Oxton may be able to assist you with pursuing the compensation you are entitled to under the law.
However, a “one-bite” rule may not apply to a bite from a banned breed. This is because the ban assumes the breed is inherently dangerous, which creates a presumption of risk. In other words, because the breed is banned, the owner should have known their dog would bite someone; otherwise, the dog would not have been banned. Therefore, those who live in an area with a Pitbull ban and have a Pitbull may be held legally liable for the first bite. Additionally, if they did not have an exemption that allowed them to have the banned breed, they may face criminal charges, and the dog may be seized and impounded or euthanized.
Why Neutral-Breed Policies May Be a Better Option
Neutral-breed legislation that targets the root causes of aggression in dogs could be a better option than banning specific breeds. There are several reasons to stop banning breeds and instead create laws that prevent aggression in any breed and identify particular behaviors or actions that are considered aggressive.
Easier to Enforce
BSL is difficult to enforce, particularly if a dog is a mixed breed or the breed is difficult to determine. A study by Maddie’s Fund found that of 120 dogs, 55 were identified by observers as Pitbulls, while only 25 were identified as Pitbulls by DNA analysis. On top of that, the observers missed identifying 20% of the dogs identified as pitbulls by DNA analysis. This means that people cannot reliably identify a dog’s breed, which makes enforcing bans based on breed difficult. Because it is so difficult to identify a dog’s breed based on appearance, it is very difficult to enforce the inherently vague bans against specific breeds.
Breed-neutral legislation identifies specific things that can cause a dog to be dangerous, which apply across all breeds. This makes it easier to identify a dangerous dog, as it is based on the owner’s actions (such as abusing the dog) or the dog’s behavior (such as biting people), which can be easily seen and identified. This can also reduce fear of specific breeds because it does not indicate that any breed is more dangerous than others.
Does Not Discriminate Against Responsible Dog Owners or Their Dogs
BSL generalizes the behavior of dogs that look a certain way, and does not allow for the consideration of the dog’s owner’s behavior or the dog’s behavior. Innocent dogs are euthanized based solely on physical appearance, and responsible, loving dog owners and their families are forced to give up dogs that have never harmed anyone or move to areas that do not have bans.
Breed-neutral legislation allows people to own the dogs they want to own. As long as they are responsible, take care of those dogs, and train them well, they will not be bothered unless the dog bites someone. Additionally, breed-neutral legislation assists when dogs of allegedly dangerous breeds are serving as assets to their community, such as engaging in military operations, police work, rescue work, or as service animals. These dogs do not suffer due to misinformation and stereotypes.
Addresses the Social Issue of Irresponsible Dog Ownership
When left unsupervised, unneutered, and not socially conditioned to be around other animals or people, any dog can become dangerous. Any dog can become dangerous when abused. BSL gives a community a false sense of security by indicating that only some dogs are dangerous based on breed, and others are perfectly safe. People are then surprised when a neglected or abused dog of one of those “safe” breeds bites.
Breed-neutral legislation takes away that false sense of security and reminds people that any dog can be dangerous and they should be more concerned about how the dog’s owner treats the dog than with what breed the dog is. By avoiding breed bans, communities can avoid wasting time, effort, and money on ineffective bans and restrictions. They can instead focus on tried-and-true solutions, such as encouraging appropriate socialization and training, licensing and leash laws, and being proactive when a dog is a threat to the community.
Impossible to Calculate or Compare Bite Rates Between Breeds
Breed bans are based on the mistaken idea that a particular breed is more dangerous than others. Often, this claim is backed by other claims, such as that the banned breed has a higher rate of bites than any other. However, these claims are false, as there is no reliable way to calculate bites by breed because dog bite data is generally unreliable. First, not every dog bite is reported, especially if it does not cause significant injury, and those that are reported typically do not report a breed, or the breed reported is inaccurate. Second, the number of breeds and the number of dogs in a community is not known because not all dogs are properly licensed. Finally, statistics generally do not account for multiple incidents by the same dog, which could lead to a falsely higher rate for a particular breed.
Breed-neutral legislation removes any need to be concerned about breed. This legislation identifies behaviors that indicate a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog. For example, legislation may prohibit chaining or tying up a dog for extended periods, ban cruelty such as dogfighting, strictly enforce leash laws, and require communities to offer low-cost spay and neuter services. Dogs are treated as dangerous when they show signs of being dangerous, such as having bitten someone, or showing other distinct signs of aggression, such as growling, nipping, showing teeth, etc., instead of being considered dangerous because someone thinks they are a Pitbull, or whatever other breed is being banned at a particular time.
How a Dog Bite Attorney May Benefit You
Pitbull bans, and breed bans in general, are unfair. Breed-neutral legislation is a more appropriate approach to protecting the community that encourages responsible dog ownership and penalizes irresponsible owners, while removing dangerous dogs from the community and leaving innocent dogs unharmed. Regardless of bans or legislation changes that may come, if you have been bitten by any breed of dog, you are entitled by law to seek compensation for your injuries, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. At Dickerson Oxton, our experienced Missouri and Kansas dog bite attorneys may be able to assist you with negotiating with the dog’s owner or their insurance company, collecting evidence, or representing you in court, if needed. Call (816) 542-6599 to book an appointment to discuss your case and learn more about pursuing a case after being bitten by a dog.