"comfort dogs"

[videogal1]

when companys get enough lawsuits for animal bites and injuries to the animals themselfs. tha ada will be pressured to amend the rules

Consider this:
1. The ADA is a law passed by Congress, not an organization.
2. State laws may be either more or less restrictive than Federal law but the law that must be followed if there is a conflict between state and Federal law is the law that is the LEAST restrictive...Texas state service dog law requires formal training by a school recognized by a state agency The ADA requires no such formal training, or certification, or registration. Texas service dog law would be found to be more restrictive than the ADA and therefore not enforceable
3. There is a new set of rules that has been approved, but not adopted as part of the law, that attempts to clarify the ADA since case law was becoming truly bizarre in the way the ADA was being interpreted. I cannot find it on-line at the moment but these new "standards" are an attempt to help.
4. The problem with Service Dog law is that there are few attorneys willing to work for free and if a business violates the law by refusing access by a Service Dog who would care except the individual who is denied access? There are no monetary awards permitted by the ADA so if state law does not set up a monetary punishment for the offending business there's not much chance anything will be resolved.
5. The Service dog itself has no rights. Only the disabled handler has the right to bring a service dog into public where pets are not allowed.

 

[Schmeck]

Consider this:
4. The problem with Service Dog law is that there are few attorneys willing to work for free and if a business violates the law by refusing access by a Service Dog who would care except the individual who is denied access? There are no monetary awards permitted by the ADA so if state law does not set up a monetary punishment for the offending business there's not much chance anything will be resolved.

This also works the other way - the business doesn't get any monetary settlement if the dog owner is found at fault either, so nothing gets settled that way. If a service dog causes damage/harm, I think the owner should be held responsible and pay restitution, and if the dog is not a true service dog, the owner should also be heavily fined. It has to go both ways.

 

[videogal1]

This also works the other way - the business doesn't get any monetary settlement if the dog owner is found at fault either, so nothing gets settled that way. If a service dog causes damage/harm, I think the owner should be held responsible and pay restitution, and if the dog is not a true service dog, the owner should also be heavily fined. It has to go both ways.

Damage to business property caused by any dog is recoverable through insurance coverage and has nothing to do with the access issues that are the point of my post.

Furthermore, the states that have addressed service dog law most often include a penalty (misdemeanor punishable by a $200 fine in Texas) for those found guilty of misrepresenting their "pet" as a service dog in order to gain public access when they would not ordinarily be granted it . You have to be disabled as defined by the ADA in order to use a Service Dog in public.
The three basic questions that a business is allowed to ask to determine if a dog is allowed access has already been discussed here and it is clear that businesses have every right to allow or disallow a dog as long as the determination of access and tolerance of behavior are decided according to legal guidelines, which are widely available to businesses that care to investigate.

If a service dog causes damage or harm the handler is actually responsible for restitution....by law. In my opinion a service dog that causes harm should have been retired long before getting into that kind of trouble...trouble no responsible handler wants...ever.