Texas House Bill HB998

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 1/28/11
• Refer: 2/28/11

Caption

Relating to the civil liability of and insurance requirements for owners of certain dogs; providing penalties.

Impact

The bill's implications are significant as it modifies existing laws in Chapter 822 of the Health and Safety Code. By introducing mandatory liability insurance coverage for owners of specific breeds of dogs, the bill is expected to mitigate financial risks associated with dog attacks. The enforcement of these insurance requirements may lead to reduced incidents of dog-related injuries and fatalities, placing a greater emphasis on responsible dog ownership and accountability. Additionally, the specific targeting of unneutered male dogs aims to address concerns regarding aggressive dog behavior and attacks on humans and property.

Summary

House Bill 998 addresses the civil liability and insurance requirements for certain dog owners in Texas. Specifically, the bill focuses on unaltered male dogs that weigh 20 pounds or more and are not restrained appropriately. Under the provisions of this bill, owners of such dogs are held liable for damages resulting from any attacks by their dogs, thereby increasing the legal responsibility placed on dog owners. This change aims to improve accountability among dog owners and promote public safety in communities throughout Texas.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 998 is largely positive among animal rights advocates and public safety organizations, who view the bill as a necessary step to protect residents from potentially dangerous dogs. Proponents argue that it will encourage dog owners to take proper precautions and ensure their pets are adequately restrained or insured. Nevertheless, there may be opposition from segments of the public who perceive the bill as overly restrictive or punitive towards responsible dog owners, particularly those with well-behaved pets that are not neutered.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HB 998 concern the extent of liability placed on dog owners, particularly in cases where an attack occurs under circumstances that may be considered outside the owner's control. There is also concern regarding the classification and enforcement of the insurance requirements, which may disproportionately affect owners of larger or unneutered dogs. Critics may argue that the bill does not sufficiently address broader issues of dog control and community safety beyond insurance and liability, necessitating a more comprehensive approach to animal control legislation.