Liability For Mistreating Animals Under Missouri Law - AgEBB

Liability For Mistreating Animals Under Missouri Law

By Dr. Stephen F. Matthews
Professor Of Agricultural Law
Social Science Unit, College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources
University of Missouri - Columbia

green line
October 13, 1986
Revised 1996 by Deanne Hackman

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 Both were repealed at the time of the 1983 enactment.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 The repealed statutes protected "any animal or other nonhuman living creature."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:
  1. Intentionally or purposely kill[ing] an animal in any manner not allowed by or expressly exempted from the provisions of [this act];
  2. Purposely, intentionally or recklessly caus[ing] injury, suffering, or pain to an animal;
  3. Abandon[ing] an animal in any place without making provisions for its adequate care;
  4. Overwork[ing] or overload[ing] an animal, or driv[ing] or work[ing] an animal unfit to work; or
  5. 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.