Chapter 609

 

      Chapter 609

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Possession and administration of sodium pentobarbital by county animal control program, (1982) Vol 42, p 297

 

      609.010

 

      See annotations under ORS 609.125.

 

      609.090

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Where plaintiff underwent series of rabies shots because defendant city destroyed dog that bit him before determination of whether dog did or did not have rabies, this section could be used to measure standard of care of officials who impounded dog in determining whether conduct of officials was reasonable under existing circumstances. Jones v. City of Prairie City, 86 Or App 701, 740 P2d 236 (1987)

 

      609.095

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      This section is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Winkelman, 24 Or App 317, 545 P2d 601 (1976)

 

      609.125

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 609.010)

 

      “Domesticated fowl” means birds bred and raised for human benefit or use. Hogan v. Gridelli, 129 Or App 539, 879 P2d 896 (1994)

 

      609.140

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Injured” livestock refers to situation where there is no physical contact between dog and livestock but livestock damage results from dog’s action. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

 

      “Chased” livestock does not require that dog had predatory intent or that livestock suffered damage as result. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Double damages provision is not subject to three-year statute of limitations under ORS 12.100. Diaz v. Coyle, 152 Or App 250, 953 P2d 773 (1998)

 

      Livestock owner need not prove negligence, recklessness or other state of mind of dog owner. Parker v. Parker, 223 Or App 137, 195 P3d 428 (2008)

 

      Dog owner may be found liable for injury to livestock occurring on property of dog owner. Parker v. Parker, 223 Or App 137, 195 P3d 428 (2008)

 

      609.150

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Relative value” is not a factor to be considered in determining whether the owner of poultry or livestock attacked by dogs may kill such dogs. White v. Maxwell, 274 Or 557, 547 P2d 117 (1976)

 

      609.155

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Injuring” livestock refers to situation where there is no physical contact between dog and livestock but livestock damage results from dog’s action. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

 

      “Chasing” livestock does not require that dog have predatory intent or that livestock suffer damage as result. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

 

      609.157

 

      See annotations under ORS 609.161.

 

      609.161

(formerly 609.157)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Injuring” livestock refers to situation where there is no physical contact between dog and livestock but livestock damage results from dog’s action. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

 

      “Chasing” livestock does not require that dog have predatory intent or that livestock suffer damage as result. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

 

      609.190

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Sheep owner who made claim to county dog fund for damages to his sheep caused by dogs and was paid became subrogated to county and could not proceed against dog owner for those claims, but could proceed against dog owner for damages not claimed. Columbia County v. Randall, 49 Or App 643, 620 P2d 937 (1980)