A number of states make it a felony or misdemeanor to own or possess a dog known to be vicious, if the dog injures or kills a person as a result of the dog owner’s criminal negligence. One state (California) has a more general penal law referring to “mischievous animal” as opposed to only a dog, Penal Code section 399:
399. (a) If any person owning or having custody or control of a mischievous animal, knowing its propensities, willfully suffers it to go at large, or keeps it without ordinary care, and the animal, while so at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, kills any human being who has taken all the precautions that the circumstances permitted, or which a reasonable person would ordinarily take in the same situation, is guilty of a felony.
(b) If any person owning or having custody or control of a mischievous animal, knowing its propensities, willfully suffers it to go at large, or keeps it without ordinary care, and the animal, while so at large, or while not kept with ordinary care, causes serious bodily injury to any human being who has taken all the precautions that the circumstances permitted, or which a reasonable person would ordinarily take in the same situation, is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony.
In these states, a prosecutor does not have to prove the elements of involuntary homicide, battery or other more general penal laws, but can rely on the specific statute relating to vicious dogs or mischievous animals.
An interesting question arises, however, in cases where the prosecutor proceeds under both the specific and general statutes. Although it is common to do so (see for example the overlapping convictions in the Diane Whipple case), there is at least one unpublished court opinion in California which holds that it is improper to convict a defendant under both the mischievous animal law as well as the involuntary manslaughter law.