2006 Nebraska Revised Statutes - § 54-601 — Dogs; personal property; owner liable for damages.

Section 54-601
Dogs; personal property; owner liable for damages.

Dogs are hereby declared to be personal property for all intents and purposes, and the owner or owners of any dog or dogs shall be liable for any and all damages that may accrue (1) to any person, other than a trespasser, by reason of having been bitten by any such dog or dogs and (2) to any person, firm, or corporation by reason of such dog or dogs killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing any person or persons or any sheep or other domestic animals belonging to such person, firm, or corporation. Such damage may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of the amount claimed.

Source:

Laws 1877, § 1, p. 156

Laws 1899, c. 4, § 1, p. 54

R.S.1913, § 172

C.S.1922, § 169

C.S.1929, § 54-601

R.S.1943, § 54-601

Laws 1947, c. 192, § 1, p. 629

Laws 1961, c. 268, § 1, p. 786

Laws 1992, LB 1011, § 1

Annotations:

While this section exempts a dog owner from strict liability for injuries to a trespasser caused by the owner's dog, it does not cut off the common-law tort remedy available to a trespasser for a dogbite. Guzman v. Barth, 250 Neb. 763, 552 N.W.2d 299 (1996).

The strict liability of an owner of a dog for all damages that may accrue to any person, other than a trespasser, by reason of having been bitten by such dog, does not extend to the owners of leased property upon which the dog is harbored. McCullough v. Bozarth, 232 Neb. 714, 442 N.W.2d 201 (1989).

Dog owners are statutorily liable for any and all damages inflicted by their dog to any person, other than a trespasser, without proof of scienter or knowledge of the dangerous propensities of the dogs for biting and by reason of such dog or dogs killing, wounding, worrying, or chasing domestic animals. Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791, 277 N.W.2d 233 (1979).

In an action based upon statutory liability for injury by a dog, the injured person will be barred from recovering if he intentionally provoked the dog, and thereby caused it to attack him. Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791, 277 N.W.2d 233 (1979).

The merely playful acts of dogs do not give rise to a cause of action or damages hereunder. Donner v. Plymate, 193 Neb. 647, 228 N.W.2d 612 (1975).

Evidence was insufficient to show that injury to sheep was caused by defendant's dogs. Norman v. Sprague, 167 Neb. 528, 93 N.W.2d 637 (1958).

Owner of dogs not liable when evidence fails to show injuries to horses directly attributable to dogs. Cook v. Pickrel, 20 Neb. 433, 30 N.W. 421 (1886).

This civil dog bite statute creates a cause of action based upon strict liability on the part of the dog owner. State v. Ruisi, 9 Neb. App. 435, 616 N.W.2d 19 (2000).2. Miscellaneous

When the words killing, wounding, worrying, or chasing as used in this section are read together, they exclude playful and mischievous acts of dogs. Holden v. Schwer, 242 Neb. 389, 495 N.W.2d 269 (1993).

Question whether seven-year-old child was a trespasser under statute was question for jury, which should have been instructed on definition of trespasser, including element of intent. Kenney v. Barna, 215 Neb. 863, 341 N.W.2d 901 (1983).

This section removes the common law restriction of proving scienter or knowledge of the dangerous propensities of dogs, but only as it applies to the actions of dogs specified in the statute. Paulsen v. Courtney, 202 Neb. 791, 277 N.W.2d 233 (1979).

Purpose of statute is to protect domestic animals, ordinarily the prey of dogs. No right exists to kill dog for past conduct. Brown v. Graham, 80 Neb. 281, 114 N.W. 153 (1907).

Owner can recover value of dog killed, if not running at large. Nehr v. State, 35 Neb. 638, 53 N.W. 589 (1892).

~Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska