Liability For Mistreating Animals Under
Missouri Law
CAUTION: Do not rely upon this information for legal advice. See an
attorney for legal advice to fit your facts.
Have you ever wondered whether there might be criminal liability for failing to
keep livestock fenced in or provided with adequate food and water? There have
been a few cases in Missouri, but these cases are fairly extreme in that horses
or cows were left to die of starvation. Nowadays there is so much talk of
"animal rights" that livestock agriculture businesses might well
wonder where the "liability line" really is.
Let's take a look at the Missouri "animal neglect and/or abuse"
statute enacted in 1983. Every state has enacted some form of
"anti-cruelty" statute to protect animals.
Until the 1983 legislation, Missouri relied upon two statutes to prevent cruelty
to animals. Both were repealed at the time of the 1983 enactment. These former
statutes focused generally upon the property interest in the animal and upon
society's intolerance of cruel behavior towards animals - not on any intrinsic
value of animal rights. However, the new statutes expand the focus and create
the broader crimes of animal abuse and neglect.
The 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of "animal rights," which was
reflected in the extensive publicity and numerous federal legislative enactments
designed to protect animals. For example, a 1966 Life magazine article
describing animal cruelty reportedly provoked more mail and calls for
legislative action than had feature articles on Viet Nam. In the decade
following the Life article, a series of three federal laws was enacted. These
statutes focused respectively upon: (1) stopping dog thefts for resale to
research institutions, (2) licensing pet shops, and (3) providing for safe and
sanitary transportation of animals.
The new Missouri statute exempts from its coverage "normal or accepted
practices of animal husbandry" with respect to farm animals. The earlier
Missouri anti-cruelty laws did not exempt farmers and ranchers from coverage.
The repealed statutes protected "any animal or other nonhuman living
creature." The new Act defines "animal" more narrowly, as
"every living vertebrate except a human being." Arguably, even insects
were covered by the earlier anti-cruelty laws.
While the repealed statutes both made liberal use of the words "cruelly,
willfully, and maliciously," the new Act omits "cruelly" and
"maliciously." The justification commonly set forth for the change in
language is that the previous statute was interpreted to require specific intent
(malice), and thus successful prosecution was often hindered.
Under the 1983 statue, there are two types of animal crimes: (1) neglect and (2)
abuse. "Neglect" is the lesser crime, and is committed when a
"person has custody or ownership of an animal and fails to provide adequate
care or adequate control." Because farm animals are normally exempt from
the Act, these provisions refer primarily to dogs and cats. Farm animals would,
however, be within the Act's protection should the farmer/rancher fail to use
"normal or accepted practices of animal husbandry."
"Adequate care" is defined as "normal and prudent attention to
the needs of an animal, including wholesome food, clean water, shelter and
health care as necessary to maintain good health in a specific species of
animal." The 1980 Missouri case of State v. Mitts wherein horses were left
without adequate food and water would probably subject the rancher to the animal
neglect sections of the Act.
"Adequate control" is defined as "to reasonably restrain or
govern an animal so that the animal does not injure itself, any person, any
other animal, or property." It will be interesting to see how situations of
stray farm animals will be treated under this section.
The 1979 Missouri case of State v. Coplin, in which an animal owner was
convicted of beating a dumb animal, would presumably be covered under
"animal abuse." The abuse statute defines five different categories,
any one of which constitutes animal abuse:
- Intentionally or purposely kill[ing] an
animal in any manner not allowed by or expressly exempted from the
provisions of [this act];
- Purposely, intentionally or recklessly
caus[ing] injury, suffering, or pain to an animal;
- Abandon[ing] an animal in any place
without making provisions for its adequate care;
- Overwork[ing] or overload[ing] an
animal, or driv[ing] or work[ing] an animal unfit to work; or
- Having ownership or custody of an
animal, willfully fail[ing] to provide adequate care or adequate control.
The penalty for animal cruelty is stiffer
under the Act than under the previous statutes, at least for first-time animal
abuse offenders and repeat cases for animal neglect. Under the old
"malicious killing, wounding, or torturing dumb animals" statute,
conviction was a misdemeanor and was punishable by up to three months in jail, a
fine of $50, or both. The "impounding without food and water" statute
simply made conviction a misdemeanor, without specifying length of jail sentence
or magnitude of fine. The new Act would subject a convicted animal neglecter to
a class C misdemeanor (up to 3 months, $300) for the first conviction, and to a
class B misdemeanor (up to 6 months, $500) for the second and all subsequent
convictions. A person convicted of animal abuse (the more serious crime) has
committed a class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year $1,000). It is conceivable that
farmers/ranchers who over a prolonged period fail to provide adequate food,
water, and/or shelter for farm animals are subject to not only a charge of
animal neglect but, in addition, the charge of animal abuse. Prosecution under
the new Act is more likely to result in conviction than under the repealed
anti-cruelty laws because absence of "maliciousness or cruelty" is no
longer a defense or a factor for consideration.
The Act continues to recognize the exemptions of the earlier statutes for
scientific experiments, lawful taking of animals (hunting), and the destruction
of household, garden pests or creatures which have an adverse effect on public
health. Interestingly, these three broad exemptions were recognized only in the
"malicious killing, wounding, or torturing dumb animals" statute. No
exemptions were provided for in the "impounding without food and
water" statute. Query then whether the new Act, which provides an exemption
for farm animals, will actually provide any more animal protection than the old
law with no such exemption.
Much has been critically written about state anti-cruelty laws, suggesting that
such laws lack an adequate remedy for the animal and its suffering. The new
Missouri statute, however, makes significant strides in fashioning an
animal-oriented remedy. For example, a first conviction for animal neglect can
be waived by the court if the person guilty of the animal neglect shows that
adequate, permanent remedies have been made. In addition, reasonable costs for
the care and maintenance of neglected animals cannot be waived. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, if the court is convinced that a person convicted of
either animal neglect or abuse would in the future subject the animal(s) to
continued neglect or abuse, such animal(s) will not be returned or allowed to
remain with that person.
In summary, it should be observed that the new Act serves to encourage
enforcement by public officials. A warrant to inspect, care for, or impound
neglected or abused animals is available from an appropriate court provided
there is probable cause to believe violation of the Act has occurred. Both
public health and law enforcement officials are authorized to seek warrants. Any
property which must necessarily be damaged while such a person is acting
pursuant to a warrant is not recoverable.
__________________
Prepared December 13, 2001