Dachshund mix Cody faced a court-ordered death this week in Philadelphia history.

In the summer of 1993, a significant legal and ethical dilemma arose when Terri N. Gelberg was bitten by an unleashed dachshund mix named Cody while test-riding bicycles on the Manayunk towpath. The incident prompted Gelberg to undergo medical treatment and contemplate the necessity of rabies testing for the dog, a potent viral disease that can result in severe health consequences.

Following the attack, Gelberg experienced deep lacerations, which continued bleeding a week after the incident, requiring her to seek rabies vaccinations. To avoid additional medical interventions, Gelberg urged authorities to test Cody, which, under existing rabies protocols, necessitated euthanizing the dog to facilitate a brain examination.

John Parker, the owner of Cody, opposed this procedure. Their disagreement led to a hearing in a Philadelphia Common Pleas courtroom, presided over by Judge Pro Tem Thomas Rutter. This case drew considerable media attention, turning what could have been a routine legal matter into a public spectacle. The courtroom experience was characterized by a mix of humor and tension, with many attendees expressing their support for the dog.

During the two-hour hearing on July 28, 1993, Gelberg, a law school graduate, presented her case on emotional terms, detailing her fears regarding rabies following the dog bite. Parker, who did not testify, faced scrutiny as details emerged suggesting he had neither vaccinated nor taken the dog to a veterinarian, raising questions about his responsibility as a pet owner.

Despite the serious nature of the case, a veterinarian from the SPCA examined Cody and reported no signs of rabies. This assessment, along with arguments citing common dog behavior, ultimately influenced Judge Rutter’s decision. He concluded that Gelberg failed to demonstrate that the dog’s actions were indicative of rabies.

In his ruling, Judge Rutter acknowledged the prevailing instincts of dogs, stating that it is not unusual for them to chase after people or bicycles. He maintained a firm stance, addressing Parker’s evasive handling of the ownership question but decided against the dog’s euthanasia. Following the announcement, a court official conveyed the verdict to the public, with the affirmation that Cody would not be put down.

This case highlights the complexities inherent in animal control laws, especially in instances of aggression. It underscores the fine line between public safety and the ethical treatment of animals, a debate that continues to resonate in contemporary society.