(1) Dogs
are hereby declared to be personal property for all intents and purposes,
and, except as provided in
subsection (2) of this section, the owner or owners of any dog
or 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) 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.
(2)(a) A governmental
agency or its employees using a dog in military or police work shall not be
liable 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 act
that prompted the use of the dog in the military or police work if the officers
of the governmental agency were complying with a written policy on the necessary
and appropriate use of a dog for military or police work adopted by the governmental
agency and if the damage occurred while the dog was responding to a harassing
or provoking act or the damage was the result of a reasonable use of force
while the dog or dogs were assisting an employee of the agency in any of the
following:
(i) The apprehension or holding of a suspect if the employee has
a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity;
(ii) The investigation
of a crime or possible crime;
(iii) The execution of a warrant; or
(iv) The defense
of a peace officer or another person other than the suspect.
(b) For purposes of this
subsection, harassing or provoking act means knowingly and intentionally attempting
to interfere with, interfering with, teasing or harassing such dog in order
to distract, or agitating or harming such dog.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case:
Underhill v. Hobelman, 776 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 2009).
Underhill v. Hobelman, 776 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 30× “NATURE OF CASE The sole issue in this appeal is whether an amendment to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 2004), which inserted the word "injuring" to the list of recoverable actions, expands the statute's coverage to include damages caused by a dog's playful or mischievous…”
Paulsen v. Courtney, 277 N.W.2d 233 (Neb. 1979).
· cites it 18× “The action was filed pursuant to section 54-601, R. R. S. 1943, which provides as follows: “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 *792 and all damages that may accrue (1)…”
Guzman v. Barth, 552 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 16× “Guzman alleged that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 1993), Barth was liable for any and all damages that occurred as a result of the dogbite.”
State v. Ruisi, 616 N.W.2d 19 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 14× “2d 269 (1993), the court reiterated that Nebraska's dog bite statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 1998), is based on strict liability.”
Collier v. Zambito, 807 N.E.2d 254 (NY 2004).
· cites it 2× “22; Mont Code Ann § 27-1-715; Neb Rev Stat § 54-601; NJ Stat Ann § 4:19-16).”
Grammer v. Lucking, 292 Neb. 475 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 9× “The Grammers filed this action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 (1) (Reissue 2010), which imposes liability upon dog owners for damages caused by their dogs “killing, wound- ing, injuring, worrying, or chasing any person or persons.”
Donner v. Plymate, 228 N.W.2d 612 (Neb. 1975).
· cites it 14× “This is an action brought by Marguerite Donner to recover damages under section 54-601, R. R. S. 1943, for personal injuries sustained in a fall that she alleges was caused by a dog owned by Donald Plymate.”
State v. Lesoing-dittoe, 693 N.W.2d 261 (Neb. 2005).
· cites it 4× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 2004). The Dittoes pleaded no contest to the charges.”
Plowman v. Pratt, 684 N.W.2d 28 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Plowman alleged that Pratt was strictly liable for her injuries under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 1998) and that Semin was negligent in failing to (1) inspect the premises in order to determine that it was free of dangerous conditions, (2) maintain the premises in a…”
Gehrts v. Batteen, 2001 SD 10 (S.D. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Our legislature has already imposed strict liability on dog owners for damages inflicted upon "poultry or domestic animal[s].”
Kenney Ex Rel. Kenney v. Barna, 341 N.W.2d 901 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 5× “Kenney, a minor, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 1978), the “dogbite” statute.”
McCullough v. Bozarth, 442 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 (Reissue 1988) provides that “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 .”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601(1)(b) — 1 case
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.