|
(1) A dog being used by a law enforcement officer
to carry out the law enforcement officer's official duties;
(2) A dog being used in a lawful hunt;
(3) A dog where the injury or damage inflicted
by the dog was sustained by a domestic animal while the dog was working as a
hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under
the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species
or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog; or
(4) A dog where the injury inflicted by the dog
was sustained by a person who, at the time of the injury, was committing a
willful trespass or other tort, was tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog,
had tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog, or was committing or attempting to
commit a crime.
Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 67-4.1 certain dogs can
be classified as “potentially dangerous dogs” by a “Board designated by the
county or municipal authority responsible for animal control.” Under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 67-4.1(a)(2) the Board or a person will look at the following factors to
determine if a dog is potentially dangerous:
- Inflicted a bite on a person that
resulted in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic
surgery or hospitalization; or
- Killed or inflicted severe injury upon a
domestic animal when not on the owner's real property; or
- Approached a person when not on the
owner's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude
of attack.
If an injured person is attacked by a
“dangerous dog”, then the owner of the “dangerous dog” can be held strictly
liable for the injuries that the injured person incurred.
Negligence
An injured person can still recover under a
negligence theory, even if strict liability does not apply to his or her case.
This theory is not based on the negligence of the owner, “‘but rather the
wrongful keeping of…[an] animal with the knowledge of its viciousness.’” Lee
v. Rice, 154 N.C. App. 471, 472 (2002).
Under this theory, an injured person can
recover damages if he or she proves two elements: “‘(1) that the animal was
dangerous, vicious, mischievous, or ferocious, or one termed in law as
possessing a vicious propensity; and (2) that the owner or keeper knew or should
have known of the animal's vicious propensity, character, and habits.’” Lee
v. Rice, 154 N.C. App. 471, 472 (2002). (quoting Sellers v. Morris,
233 N.C. 560,561 (1951).)
To recover under this theory, an injured person
does not have to prove that the defendant had ownership of the dog. Id. To
recover, an injured person only must prove that the defendant was “keeping and
harboring” an animal that he knew to be vicious. Id at 474.
Negligence Per Se
If the Defendant owner or keeper of a dog has
violated a statute or local ordinance, an injured person can also recover under
the theory of negligence per se. In Swaney v. Shaw, the North Carolina
Court of Appeals found that “‘the violation of a statute which imposes a duty
upon the defendant in order to promote the safety of others, including the
plaintiff, is negligence per se, unless the statute, itself otherwise
provides.’” 27 N.C. App. 631, 635 (1975). (quoting Ratliffe v. Power Co.,
268 N.C. 605, 610 (1966).)
Most counties have local ordinances set in
place to protect their community from dangerous dogs. The following are state
and local ordinances that may apply in your case:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-200 (2007)
“A local health director may declare an animal
to be vicious and a menace to the public health when the animal has attacked a
person causing bodily harm without being teased, molested, provoked, beaten,
tortured or otherwise harmed. When an animal has been declared to be vicious and
a menace to the public health, the local health director shall order the animal
to be confined to its owner's property. However, the animal may be permitted to
leave its owner's property when accompanied by a responsible adult and
restrained on a leash.”
Cumberland County
“Permit or negligently allow any domestic
animal or livestock to run at large.” (Cumberland County Ordinances and
Regulations, Article 2, Section 3-15(a)(3). This information can be found at:
http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/animal_control/regulations.asp).
Durham County
“It shall be unlawful for any person owning,
keeping, possessing or maintaining a dog in this county to intentionally or
negligently allow the dog to run at large. ("At large" means any animal found
off the property of its owner and not under restraint, or any animal has been
subject of a previous at large complaint when found unrestrained whether or not
on or off property of its owner, or any animal previously determined to be
dangerous or potentially dangerous that is not confined to a secure enclosure
while on the property of it's owner). Adequate restraint is defined as a secure
enclosure located on the owners property, or a chain, leash or other physical or
electronic device of sufficient strength which allows the owner to maintain
control of an animal. Voice command is not adequate restraint.” (This
information can be found on the Animal Control section of the Durham County
Government: The Official Website at
http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/anml/
Dogs_at_Large.html)
Wake County
Section 2-3-12 of the Wake County Animal
Control Ordinance make it “unlawful for any owner to maintain or harbor
unconfined or unrestrained any dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog.”
(This information can be found at
http://www.wakegov.com/NR/rdonlyres/0F73D264-4A7D-4C8D-8C72-958672F28753/0/AnimalControlOrdinance.pdf)
Dog Bites in NC
Dog Bite Prevention &
Safety Tips
Dangerous Dogs & Potentially Dangerous
Dogss
Protecting Your
Rights After a Dog Bite
<
Back to Dog Bites in North
Carolina
| 
