54-601 Dogs; personal property; owner liable for damages; exceptions. - Nebraska Statutes

54-601. Dogs; personal property;owner liable for damages; exceptions.(1) Dogsare hereby declared to be personal property for all intents and purposes,and, except as provided insubsection (2) of this section, the owner or owners of any dogor dogs shall be liable for any and all damages that may accrue (a) to any person, other than a trespasser,by reason of having been bitten by any such dog or dogs and (b) toany 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 otherdomestic animals belonging to such person, firm, or corporation. Such damagemay be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of the amount claimed.(2)(a) A governmentalagency or its employees using a dog in military or police work shall not beliable under subsection (1) of this section to a party to, participant in,or person reasonably suspected to be a party to or participant in the actthat prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work if the officersof the governmental agency were complying with a written policy on the necessaryand appropriate use of a dog for military or police work adopted by the governmentalagency and if the damage occurred while the dog was responding to a harassingor provoking act or the damage was the result of a reasonable use of forcewhile the dog or dogs were assisting an employee of the agency in any of thefollowing:(i) The apprehension or holding of a suspect if the employee hasa reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity;(ii) The investigationof a crime or possible crime;(iii) The execution of a warrant; or(iv) The defenseof a peace officer or another person other than the suspect.(b) For purposes of thissubsection, harassing or provoking act means knowingly and intentionally attemptingto interfere with, interfering with, teasing or harassing such dog in orderto distract, or agitating or harming such dog. SourceLaws 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; Laws 2009, LB347, § 1.Annotations1. Liability of owner2. Miscellaneous1. Liability of ownerWhile 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 dog bite. 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. MiscellaneousWhen 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).