Liability for damage -- Proceeding by person attacked by dog -- Disposition of dog after seizure -- Powers of animal control officer -- Vicious dog not to run at large.
(1) Any person, without liability, may kill or seize any dog which is observed attacking any person.
(2) Any livestock owner or his agent, without liability, may kill any dog trespassing on that owner's property and observed in the act of pursuing or wounding his livestock.
(3) Any dog determined to be vicious by a court and allowed to be returned to an owner shall be confined in a locked enclosure at least seven (7) feet high or a locked kennel run with a secured top. The dog may leave the enclosure only to visit the veterinarian or to be turned in to an animal shelter. The dog shall be muzzled if leaving the enclosure for either of these purposes.
(4) Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage.
(5) (a) Any person who has been attacked by a dog, or anyone acting on behalf of that person, may make a complaint before the district court, charging the owner or keeper of the dog with harboring a vicious dog. A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the person so charged in the same manner and subject to the laws regulating the service of summons in civil actions directing him to appear for a hearing of the complaint at a time fixed in the complaint. If the person fails to appear at the time fixed, or if upon a hearing of the parties and their witnesses, the court finds the person so charged is the owner or keeper of the dog in question, and that the dog has viciously and without cause, attacked a human being when off the premises of the owner or keeper, the person shall be subject to the penalties set forth in KRS 258.990(3)(b), and the court shall further order the owner or keeper to keep the dog securely confined as provided by subsection (3) of this section, or the court may order the dog to be destroyed.
(b) The animal control officer shall act as an officer of the court for the enforcement of any orders of the court in his jurisdiction pertaining to this subsection.
(6) For his services in the proceedings, a peace officer shall be entitled to the same fees to which he is entitled for performing similar services in civil cases. In all proceedings under this section, the court shall place the costs upon either party as it may determine.
(7) It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any vicious dog, after receiving an order under subsection (5) of this section, to permit the dog to run at large, or to appear in public except as provided in subsection (3) of this section. Any vicious dog found running at large may be killed by any animal control officer or peace officer without liability for damages for the killing. Effective: July 13, 2004 History: Amended 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 189, sec. 18, effective July 13, 2004. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 440, sec. 5, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 223, effective January 2, 1978. -- Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 119, sec. 26, effective June 17, 1954.
Notes of Decisions
Benningfield ex rel. Benningfield v. Zinsmeister, 367 S.W.3d 561 (Ky. 2012).
· cites it 15× “Unlike the liability statute, KRS 258.235 (and formerly KRS 258.275), the definitional statute has never been amended, moved, recodi-fied, or otherwise readopted since its initial enactment.”
May v. Holzknecht Ex Rel. Holzknecht, 320 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “” 2 The trial court did not interpret the provisions of KRS 258.235 to impose strict liability upon the keepers of dogs under all circumstances.”
Bess v. Bracken Cnty. Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” They also argue that the ordinance conflicts with KRS 258.235, under which the district court possesses jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning dogs that have attacked people.”
Carmical v. Bullock, 251 S.W.3d 324 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“However, the replacement statute, KRS 258.235(4), reads substantially the same: "Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 449 S.W.3d 350 (Ky. 2014).
“020(1) (emphasis added)); see also KRS 258.235(5)(a) and KRS 258.990(3)(b) (animal control statutes providing criminal liability).”
Owens v. Wolfe (E.D. Ky. 2024).
· cites it 18× “Strict Liability under KRS 258.235(4) Plaintiffs assert that Defendant, William B.”
Anna Insko v. Jeremiah Perraut (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 12× “The Court of Appeals affirmed and held the following: Own Your Home persuasively argues that the overall tenor of KRS 258.235 provides that it was intended to encompass only damage stemming from dog bites or attacks.”
Latasha Maupin v. Roland Tankersley (Ky. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Maupin sued Tankersley for her injuries, relying on KRS 258.235(4). (' After .conclusion of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: You will find for the Plaintiff, Latasha Maupin, under this instruction if you are satisfied from the evidence that: (A) The…”
Pamela Hanna v. Daniel Shea (Ky. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 8× “The Marshall Circuit Court granted summary judgment concluding that KRS 258.235 does not extend liability to the circumstances of Hanna’s fall.”
Anthony Sigler v. Jasmine Curtis (Ky. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “The Kentucky Supreme Court has previously expounded upon the General Assembly’s intent regarding the purpose of KRS 258.235: The statute in question is the progeny of years of evolution in the law of dog attacks.”
Cecilia Cowan v. James Brown (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “In support of the motion, they argued that they could not be strictly liable under the dog bite statute, KRS 258.235, because they did not meet the definition of an “owner” as set out in KRS 258.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 258.235(4) — 16 cases
Benningfield ex rel. Benningfield v. Zinsmeister, 367 S.W.3d 561 (Ky. 2012).
“Unlike the liability statute, KRS 258.235 (and formerly KRS 258.275), the definitional statute has never been amended, moved, recodi-fied, or otherwise readopted since its initial enactment.”
May v. Holzknecht Ex Rel. Holzknecht, 320 S.W.3d 123 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010).
“” 2 The trial court did not interpret the provisions of KRS 258.235 to impose strict liability upon the keepers of dogs under all circumstances.”
Carmical v. Bullock, 251 S.W.3d 324 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“However, the replacement statute, KRS 258.235(4), reads substantially the same: "Any owner whose dog is found to have caused damage to a person, livestock, or other property shall be responsible for that damage.”
Owens v. Wolfe (E.D. Ky. 2024).
“Strict Liability under KRS 258.235(4) Plaintiffs assert that Defendant, William B.”
Anna Insko v. Jeremiah Perraut (Ky. Ct. App. 2024).
“The Court of Appeals affirmed and held the following: Own Your Home persuasively argues that the overall tenor of KRS 258.235 provides that it was intended to encompass only damage stemming from dog bites or attacks.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 258.235(5)(a) — 2 cases
Bess v. Bracken Cnty. Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006).
“” They also argue that the ordinance conflicts with KRS 258.235, under which the district court possesses jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning dogs that have attacked people.”
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 449 S.W.3d 350 (Ky. 2014).
“020(1) (emphasis added)); see also KRS 258.235(5)(a) and KRS 258.990(3)(b) (animal control statutes providing criminal liability).”
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.