O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 4-8-30 (2019)

Confiscation by dog control officer; payment of costs for recovery; euthanasia

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A dangerous or vicious dog shall be immediately confiscated by any dog control officer or by a law enforcement officer in the case of any violation of this article. A refusal to surrender a dog subject to confiscation shall be a violation of this article.

(b) The owner of any dog that has been confiscated pursuant to this article may recover such dog upon payment of reasonable confiscation and housing costs and proof of compliance with the provisions of this article. All fines and all charges for services performed by a law enforcement or dog control officer shall be paid prior to owner recovery of the dog. Criminal prosecution shall not be stayed due to owner recovery or euthanasia of the dog.

(c) In the event the owner has not complied with the provisions of this article within 20 days of the date the dog was confiscated, such dog shall be destroyed in an expeditious and humane manner and the owner may be required to pay the costs of housing and euthanasia.

History

(Code 1981, § 4-8-30, enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 1290, § 4/HB 685.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article on the 2012 enactment of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 180 (2012). RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Liability for injuries inflicted by dog on public officer or employee, 74 ALR4th 1120. Landlord’s liability to third person for

injury resulting from attack on leased premises by dangerous or vicious animal kept by tenant, 87 ALR4th 1004.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2019 · leading case: Wyno v. Lowndes Cnty., 824 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. 2019).
Wyno v. Lowndes Cnty., 824 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 20× “In this case, Jason Wyno challenges the constitutionality of former OCGA § 4-8-30, a portion of the Responsible Dog Ownership Law which purports to exempt local governments and their employees from liability arising from their enforcement of, or failure to enforce, that law and…”
Wyno v. Lowndes Cnty., 305 Ga. 523 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 18× “In this case, Jason Wyno challenges the constitutionality of former OCGA § 4-8-30, a portion of the former Dangerous Dog Control Law which purports to exempt local governments and their employees from liability arising from their enforcement of, or failure to enforce, that law…”
Jason Wyno v. Lowndes Cnty., 771 S.E.2d 207 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 30× “As detailed below, we affirm the dismissal of the action against the county and its employees in their official capacities pursuant to the version of the Responsible Dog Ownership Law then in effect, former OCGA § 4-8-30 (2012). As to the action against the employees in their…”
Griffiths v. Schafer, 478 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “The provisions of OCGA § 4-8-30 that “the owner of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog shall be solely liable for any injury to or death of a person caused by such dog” does not impose absolute liability on the owner of a dog who has bitten before.”
Jason Wyno v. Lowndes Cnty., d/b/a Lowndes Cnty. Animal Control (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “The County Employees moved to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that, among other things, the complaint was barred under OCGA § 4-8-30 (2012) of Georgia’s Responsible Dog Ownership Law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.