609.140 Right
of action by owner of damaged livestock. (1) The owner of any livestock which has been damaged
by being injured, chased, wounded or killed by any dog shall have a cause of
action against the owner of such dog for the damages resulting therefrom,
including double the value of any livestock killed and double the amount of any
damage to the livestock.
(2) If one or
more of several dogs owned by different persons participate in damaging any
livestock, the owners of the respective dogs shall be jointly and severally
liable under this section. The owners of dogs jointly or severally liable under
this section have a right of contribution among themselves. The right exists
only in favor of an owner who has paid more than the pro rata share of the
owner, determined by dividing the total damage by the number of dogs involved,
of the common liability, and the total recovery of the owner is limited to the
amount paid by the owner in excess of the pro rata share of the owner.
(3) An action
brought under this section may be tried as an action at law in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
(4) As used in
this section:
(a) “Owner” means
the head of the family of the home where the dog is cared for at the time of
the damage.
(b) “Head of the
family” means any person who has charge or manages the affairs of a collective
body of persons residing together, the relations between whom are of a
permanent and domestic character. [Amended by 1973 c.655 §7; 1975 c.749 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1980–2008 · leading case:
Hogan v. Gridelli, 879 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
Hogan v. Gridelli, 879 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “010 (since amended by Or Laws 1993, ch 252, § 6) provides, in part: “(1) As used in ORS 609.140 to ORS 609.190, ‘livestock’ means horses, mules, jackasses, cattle, llamas, sheep, goats, swine, domesticated fowl and any fur-bearing animal bred and maintained commercially or…”
Diaz v. Coyle, 953 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 30× ““Double damages” were first made a part of ORS 609.140 in 1973. Or Laws 1973, ch 655, § 7.”
Roach v. Jackson Cnty., 949 P.2d 1227 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “155(1), ORS 609.140, ORS 609.157 and ORS 609.160.”
Columbia Cnty. v. Randall, 620 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 7× “Intervenor, who is the owner of certain sheep allegedly injured or killed by defendant’s dog, appeals from the trial court’s granting of defendant’s plea in abatement, which had the effect of dismissing the first four causes of action alleged in his complaint against defendant…”
Parker v. Parker, 195 P.3d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 13× “The trial court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiffs, concluding, “ORS 609.140 does not establish strict liability for damages resulting from a dog injuring, chasing, wounding, or killing livestock.”
Bowlin v. Deschutes Cnty., 754 P.2d 30 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“010(1) supplies the definition, because the ordinance is almost identical to other sections of the state dog control statute, ORS 609.140 to ORS 609.190. 1 At the time County enacted the ordinance and at the time of *158 the attack in question, ORS 609.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.140(1) — 4 cases
Diaz v. Coyle, 953 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
““Double damages” were first made a part of ORS 609.140 in 1973. Or Laws 1973, ch 655, § 7.”
Hogan v. Gridelli, 879 P.2d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“010 (since amended by Or Laws 1993, ch 252, § 6) provides, in part: “(1) As used in ORS 609.140 to ORS 609.190, ‘livestock’ means horses, mules, jackasses, cattle, llamas, sheep, goats, swine, domesticated fowl and any fur-bearing animal bred and maintained commercially or…”
Columbia Cnty. v. Randall, 620 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“Intervenor, who is the owner of certain sheep allegedly injured or killed by defendant’s dog, appeals from the trial court’s granting of defendant’s plea in abatement, which had the effect of dismissing the first four causes of action alleged in his complaint against defendant…”
Parker v. Parker, 195 P.3d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“The trial court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiffs, concluding, “ORS 609.140 does not establish strict liability for damages resulting from a dog injuring, chasing, wounding, or killing livestock.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 609.140(2) — 2 cases
Columbia Cnty. v. Randall, 620 P.2d 937 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“Intervenor, who is the owner of certain sheep allegedly injured or killed by defendant’s dog, appeals from the trial court’s granting of defendant’s plea in abatement, which had the effect of dismissing the first four causes of action alleged in his complaint against defendant…”
Diaz v. Coyle, 953 P.2d 773 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
““Double damages” were first made a part of ORS 609.140 in 1973. Or Laws 1973, ch 655, § 7.”
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.