ARTICLE 1. Owner's Liability.

Sec.

§ 67-1. Liability for injury to livestock or fowls.

If any dog, not being at the time on the premises of the owner or person having charge thereof, shall kill or injure any livestock or fowls, the owner or person having such dog in charge shall be liable for damages sustained by the injury, killing, or maiming of any livestock, and costs of suit.

History

(1911, c. 3, s. 1; C.S., s. 1669.)

Cross References. - As to dogfighting, see G.S. 14-362.

As to unlawful removal or destruction of electronic dog collars, see G.S. 14-401.17.

As to admittance of pets to hotel rooms, see G.S. 72-7.1.

As to assistance dogs for handicapped persons, see G.S. 168-4.2 et seq.

Legal Periodicals. - For note on liability of owner for trespass of dogs while hunting, see 33 N.C.L. Rev. 134 (1954).

CASE NOTES

As to owner's liability for personal injury by dog, see Perry v. Phipps, 32 N.C. 259 (1849); Harris v. Fisher, 115 N.C. 318, 20 S.E. 461 (1894).

As to property in dogs and liability for wrongfully killing or injuring them, see Dodson v. Mock, 20 N.C. 146 (1838); Mowery v. Town of Salisbury, 82 N.C. 175 (1880); State v. Smith, 156 N.C. 628, 72 S.E. 321 (1911); Beasley v. Byrum, 163 N.C. 3, 79 S.E. 270 (1913).

As to right to kill dog attempting to destroy animals used for food, see Parrott v. Hartsfield, 20 N.C. 110 (1838); State v. Smith, 156 N.C. 628, 72 S.E. 321 (1911).

Applied in Development Assocs. v. Wake County Bd. of Adjustment, 48 N.C. App. 541, 269 S.E.2d 700 (1980).


§ 67-2. Permitting bitch at large.

If any person owning or having any bitch shall knowingly permit her to run at large during the erotic stage of copulation he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

History

(1862-3, c. 41, s. 2; Code, s. 2501; Rev., s. 3303; C.S., s. 1670; 1993, c. 539, s. 529; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

CASE NOTES

Cited in Pegg v. Gray, 240 N.C. 548, 82 S.E.2d 757 (1954).


§ 67-3. Sheep-killing dogs to be killed.

If any person owning or having any dog that kills sheep or other domestic animals, or that kills a human being, upon satisfactory evidence of the same being made before any judge of the district court in the county, and the owner duly notified thereof, shall refuse to kill it, and shall permit such dog to go at liberty, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, and the dog may be killed by anyone if found going at large.

History

(1862-3, c. 41, s. 1; 1874-5, c. 108, s. 2; Code, s. 2500; Rev., s. 3304; C.S., s. 1671; 1973, c. 108, s. 24; 1977, c. 597; 1993, c. 539, s. 530; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Cross References. - As to what dogs may be killed, see G.S. 67-14.

CASE NOTES

As to right to kill dog attempting to destroy animals used for food, see Parrott v. Hartsfield, 20 N.C. 110 (1838); Smith v. State, 156 N.C. 628, 72 S.E. 321 (1911).

Applied in Belk v. Boyce, 263 N.C. 24, 138 S.E.2d 789 (1964).

Cited in Parrott v. Hartsfield, 20 N.C. 110 (1838); Daniels v. Homer, 139 N.C. 219, 51 S.E. 992 (1905).


§ 67-4. Failing to kill mad dog.

If the owner of any dog shall know, or have good reason to believe, that his dog, or any dog belonging to any person under his control, has been bitten by a mad dog, and shall neglect or refuse immediately to kill the same, he shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty dollars ($50.00) to him who will sue therefor; and the offender shall be liable to pay all damages which may be sustained by anyone, in his property or person, by the bite of any such dog, and shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

History

(R.C., c. 67; Code, s. 2499; Rev., s. 3305; C.S., s. 1672; 1993, c. 539, s. 531; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Cross References. - As to killing mad dogs, see G.S. 67-14.

As to rabies, vaccination, etc., generally, see G.S. 130A-184 et seq.

CASE NOTES

Actual Knowledge Unnecessary. - In an action under this section it is not necessary to prove that the biting dog was in fact mad. The words "good reason to believe" apply both to the condition of the biting dog and to the fact that the dog was bitten by a mad dog. Wallace v. Douglas, 32 N.C. 79 (1849).

Dog Can Be Destroyed. - If owner refuses to destroy a dog, which is mad or is bitten by a mad dog, he subjects himself to the possibility of a fine and imprisonment and the dog can be destroyed by order of the justice issuing the warrant under this section. Beasley v. Byrum, 163 N.C. 3, 79 S.E. 270 (1913).

As to contributory negligence of person bitten by a mad dog, see Holton v. Moore, 165 N.C. 549, 81 S.E. 779 (1914).


ARTICLE 1A. Dangerous Dogs.

Sec.

§ 67-4.1. Definitions and procedures.

  1. As used in this Article, unless the context clearly requires otherwise and except as modified in subsection (b) of this section, the term:
    1. "Dangerous dog" means
      1. A dog that:
        1. Without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person; or
        2. Is determined by the person or Board designated by the county or municipal authority responsible for animal control to be potentially dangerous because the dog has engaged in one or more of the behaviors listed in subdivision (2) of this subsection.
      2. Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting.
    2. "Potentially dangerous dog" means a dog that the person or Board designated by the county or municipal authority responsible for animal control determines to have:
      1. Inflicted a bite on a person that resulted in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization; or
      2. Killed or inflicted severe injury upon a domestic animal when not on the owner's real property; or
      3. Approached a person when not on the owner's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in an apparent attitude of attack.
    3. "Owner" means any person or legal entity that has a possessory property right in a dog.
    4. "Owner's real property" means any real property owned or leased by the owner of the dog, but does not include any public right-of-way or a common area of a condominium, apartment complex, or townhouse development.
    5. "Severe injury" means any physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or required cosmetic surgery or hospitalization.
  2. The provisions of this Article do not apply to:
    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.
  3. The county or municipal authority responsible for animal control shall designate a person or a Board to be responsible for determining when a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" and shall designate a separate Board to hear any appeal. The person or Board making the determination that a dog is a "potentially dangerous dog" must notify the owner in writing, giving the reasons for the determination, before the dog may be considered potentially dangerous under this Article. The owner may appeal the determination by filing written objections with the appellate Board within three days. The appellate Board shall schedule a hearing within 10 days of the filing of the objections. Any appeal from the final decision of such appellate Board shall be taken to the superior court by filing notice of appeal and a petition for review within 10 days of the final decision of the appellate Board. Appeals from rulings of the appellate Board shall be heard in the superior court division.  The appeal shall be heard de novo before a superior court judge sitting in the county in which the appellate Board whose ruling is being appealed is located.

History

(1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1023, s. 1.)

CASE NOTES

Potentially Dangerous Dog. - The definition of "potentially dangerous dog" as set forth in subdivision (a)(2)c is not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Caswell County v. Hanks, 120 N.C. App. 489, 462 S.E.2d 841 (1995).

Owner or Keeper. - Jury award to the victim of a dog bite was vacated as the trial court erred by not granting the defendants' motion for a directed verdict because the victim failed to establish that the defendants who the victim sued were the owners or the keepers of the dog that bit the victim; rather the evidence showed that it was the defendant's son and the son's girlfriend that owned the dog that bit the victim. Lee v. Rice, 154 N.C. App. 471, 572 S.E.2d 219 (2002).

First Offense by Dog. - It was undisputed that prior to the date of the incident in question, the dog had not killed or inflicted severe injury on a person, and thus he was not a dangerous dog and therefore defendants were not owners of a dangerous dog subject to strict liability. Mims v. Parker, - N.C. App. - , 839 S.E.2d 433 (2020), review denied, 376 N.C. 532, 851 S.E.2d 619, 2020 N.C. LEXIS 1186 (2020).

Appeal. - The language of the statute in this case is mandatory, providing that the appeal to superior court shall be heard de novo. Caswell County v. Hanks, 120 N.C. App. 489, 462 S.E.2d 841 (1995).

Applied in Ocean Hill Joint Venture v. Currituck County Bd. of Comm'rs, 178 N.C. App. 182, 630 S.E.2d 714 (2006).

Cited in State v. Burge, 212 N.C. App. 220, 710 S.E.2d 446 (2011).


§ 67-4.2. Precautions against attacks by dangerous dogs.

  1. It is unlawful for an owner to:
    1. Leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's real property unless the dog is confined indoors, in a securely enclosed and locked pen, or in another structure designed to restrain the dog;
    2. Permit a dangerous dog to go beyond the owner's real property unless the dog is leashed and muzzled or is otherwise securely restrained and muzzled.
  2. If the owner of a dangerous dog transfers ownership or possession of the dog to another person (as defined in G.S. 12-3(6)), the owner shall provide written notice to:
    1. The authority that made the determination under this Article, stating the name and address of the new owner or possessor of the dog; and
    2. The person taking ownership or possession of the dog, specifying the dog's dangerous behavior and the authority's determination.
  3. Violation of this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor.

History

(1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1023, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 532; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

CASE NOTES

Evidence Sufficient. - Because a warrant for defendant's arrest, following his dog biting a person, did not allege each element in G.S. 67-4.3, a Class 1 misdemeanor, most specifically the monetary damages at issue, defendant could not be convicted of violating G.S. 67-4.3; he could be convicted of violating G.S. 67-4.2(a), a Class 3 misdemeanor, which did not have the same element of monetary damages. State v. Burge, 212 N.C. App. 220, 710 S.E.2d 446 (2011).


§ 67-4.3. Penalty for attacks by dangerous dogs.

The owner of a dangerous dog that attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

History

(1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1023, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 533; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

CASE NOTES

Warrant Insufficient. - Because a warrant for defendant's arrest, following his dog biting a person, did not allege each element in G.S. 67-4.3, a Class 1 misdemeanor, most specifically the monetary damages at issue, defendant could not be convicted of violating G.S. 67-4.3; he could be convicted of violating G.S. 67-4.2(a), a Class 3 misdemeanor, which did not have the same element of monetary damages. State v. Burge, 212 N.C. App. 220, 710 S.E.2d 446 (2011).


§ 67-4.4. Strict liability.

The owner of a dangerous dog shall be strictly liable in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal.

History

(1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1023, s. 1.)

CASE NOTES

Failure to Prove Defendant Was the Owner or Keeper of the Dog. - Jury award to the victim of a dog bite was vacated as the trial court erred by not granting the defendants' motion for a directed verdict because the victim failed to establish that the defendants who the victim sued were the owners or the keepers of the dog that bit the victim; rather the evidence showed that it was the defendant's son and the son's girlfriend that owned the dog that bit the victim. Lee v. Rice, 154 N.C. App. 471, 572 S.E.2d 219 (2002).

First Offense by Dog. - It was undisputed that prior to the date of the incident in question, the dog had not killed or inflicted severe injury on a person, and thus he was not a dangerous dog and therefore defendants were not owners of a dangerous dog subject to strict liability. Mims v. Parker, - N.C. App. - , 839 S.E.2d 433 (2020), review denied, 376 N.C. 532, 851 S.E.2d 619, 2020 N.C. LEXIS 1186 (2020).


§ 67-4.5. Local ordinances.

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for control of dangerous dogs.

History

(1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1023, s. 1.)

ARTICLE 2. License Taxes on Dogs.

Sec.

§§ 67-5 through 67-11: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6.

Cross References. - As to the effect of the repeal, see the Editor's note following G.S. 153A-1.

Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6(c), provided: "All local acts and clauses of local acts modifying any section of the General Statutes repealed by this section or otherwise relating to the use of the proceeds of the dog tax heretofore levied pursuant to G.S. 67-5 (herein repealed) are repealed."

§ 67-12. Permitting dogs to run at large at night; penalty; liability for damage.

No person shall allow his dog over six months old to run at large in the nighttime unaccompanied by the owner or by some member of the owner's family, or some other person by the owner's permission. Any person intentionally, knowingly, and willfully violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, and shall also be liable in damages to any person injured or suffering loss to his property or chattels.

History

(1919, c. 116, s. 5; C.S., s. 1680; 1993, c. 539, s. 534; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Local Modification. - Buncombe: 1925, c. 314; Forsyth: 1967, c. 918; Gaston: 1973, c. 1327; Halifax, New Hanover, Wake: 1925, c. 314; Watauga: Pub. Loc. 1927, c. 503 (See G.S. 67-18); Yancey: 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 897.

CASE NOTES

Valid Exercise of Police Power. - A city ordinance which prohibits the owner from allowing dogs to run at large without muzzles is a valid exercise of the police power. State v. Clifton, 152 N.C. 800, 67 S.E. 751 (1910).


§ 67-13: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6.

§ 67-14. Mad dogs, dogs killing sheep, etc., may be killed.

Any person may kill any mad dog, and also any dog if he is killing sheep, cattle, hogs, goats, or poultry.

History

(1919, c. 116, s. 8; C.S., s. 1682.)

Cross References. - As to liability of owner who fails to kill sheep-killing dog, see G.S. 67-3.

As to liability of owner who fails to kill mad dog, see G.S. 67-4.

CASE NOTES

Applied in Belk v. Boyce, 263 N.C. 24, 138 S.E.2d 789 (1964).


§ 67-14.1. Dogs injuring deer or bear on wildlife management area may be killed; impounding unmuzzled dogs running at large.

  1. Any dog which trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear on any wildlife refuge, sanctuary or management area, now or hereafter so designated and managed by the Wildlife Resources Commission, during the closed season for hunting with dogs on such refuge or management area, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and any wildlife protector or other duly authorized agent or employee of the Wildlife Resources Commission may destroy, by humane method, any dog discovered trailing, running, injuring or killing any deer or bear in any such area during the closed season therein for hunting such game with dogs, without incurring liability by reason of his act in conformity with this section.
  2. Any unmuzzled dog running at large upon any wildlife refuge, sanctuary, or management area, when unaccompanied by any person having such dog in charge, shall be seized and impounded by any wildlife protector, or other duly authorized agent or employee of the Wildlife Resources Commission.
  3. The person impounding such dog shall cause a notice to be published at least once a week for two successive weeks in some newspaper published in the county wherein the dog was taken, or if none is published therein, in some newspaper having general circulation in the county. Such notice shall set forth a description of the dog, the place where it is impounded, and that the dog will be destroyed if not claimed and payment made for the advertisement, a catch fee of one dollar ($1.00) and the boarding, computed at the rate of fifty cents (50›) per day, while impounded, by a certain date which date shall be not less than 15 days after the publication of the first notice. A similar notice shall be posted at the courthouse door.
  4. The owner of the dog, or his agent, may recover such dog upon payment of the cost of the publication of the notices hereinbefore described together with a catch fee of one dollar ($1.00) and the expense, computed at the rate of fifty cents (50›) per day, incurred while impounding and boarding the dog.
  5. If any impounded dog is not recovered by the owner within 15 days after the publication of the first notice of the impounding, the dog may be destroyed in a humane manner by any wildlife protector or other duly authorized agent or employee of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and no liability shall attach to any person acting in accordance with this section.

History

(1951, c. 1021, s. 1.)

§ 67-15: Repealed by Session Laws 1983, c. 35, s. 2.

Cross References. - As to larceny of animals generally, see now G.S. 14-84.

§ 67-16. Failure to discharge duties imposed under this Article.

Any person failing to discharge any duty imposed upon him under this Article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

History

(1919, c. 116, s. 10; C.S., s. 1684; 1993, c. 539, s. 535; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

§ 67-17: Deleted.

Editor's Note. - This section has been deleted as it appeared to be local legislation of the type contemplated by G.S. 67-18 and repealed by that section. It was held to have been so repealed in McAlister v. Yancey County, 212 N.C. 208, 193 S.E. 141 (1937).


§ 67-18. Application of Article.

This Article, G.S. 67-5 to 67-18, inclusive, is hereby made applicable to every county in the State of North Carolina, notwithstanding any provisions in local, special or private acts exempting any county or any township or municipality from the provisions of the same enacted at any General Assembly commencing at the General Assembly of 1919 and going through the General Assembly of 1929.

History

(1929, c. 318.)

CASE NOTES

Applied in McAlister v. Yancey County, 212 N.C. 208, 193 S.E. 141 (1937).


ARTICLE 3. Special License Tax on Dogs.

§§ 67-19 through 67-28: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6.

Cross References. - As to the effect of the repeal, see the Editor's note under G.S. 153A-1.

Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6(c), provided: "All local acts and clauses of local acts modifying any section of the General Statutes repealed by this section or otherwise relating to the use of the proceeds of the dog tax heretofore levied pursuant to G.S. 67-5 (herein repealed) are repealed."

ARTICLE 4. Guide Dogs.

§ 67-29: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 493, s. 2.

Cross References. - For present provisions as to assistance dogs for the handicapped, see G.S. 168-4.2 et seq.


ARTICLE 5. Protection of Livestock and Poultry from Ranging Dogs.

Sec.

§ 67-30. Appointment of animal control officers authorized; salary, etc.

A county may appoint one or more animal control officers and may fix their salaries, allowances, and expenses.

History

(1951, c. 931, s. 1; 1955, c. 1333, s. 1; 1957, cc. 81, 840; 1973, c. 822, s. 6.)

Local Modification. - Cabarrus: 1979, c. 119; Forsyth: 1967, c. 587, s. 2; Franklin: 1953, c. 1005; Granville: 1965, c. 464, s. 2; Rowan: 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 872.

CASE NOTES

Applied in Kitchin v. Halifax County, 192 N.C. App. 559, 665 S.E.2d 760 (2008), review dismissed, as moot, 363 N.C. 127, 673 S.E.2d 136 (2009), review denied, 363 N.C. 127, 673 S.E.2d 135 (2009).

Cited in Farrell v. Transylvania County Bd. of Educ., 199 N.C. App. 173, 682 S.E.2d 224 (2009).


§ 67-31. Powers and duties of dog warden.

The powers and duties of the county dog warden shall be as follows:

  1. He shall have the power of arrest and be responsible for the enforcement within his county of all public and public-local laws pertaining to the ownership and control of dogs, and shall cooperate with all other law-enforcement officers operating within the county in fulfilling this responsibility.
  2. In those counties having a rabies control officer, the county dog warden shall act as assistant to the rabies control officer, working under the supervision of the county health department, to collect the dog tax. In those counties having no rabies control officer, the county dog warden shall serve as rabies control officer.

History

(1951, c. 931, s. 2.)

Local Modification. - Chowan: 1983, c. 166; Cumberland: 1967, c. 814; Dare: 1983, c. 166; Edgecombe: 1983, c. 683; Orange: 1953, c. 367, ss. 1-5, 8; Pasquotank: 1983, c. 166.

§§ 67-32 : Repealed by Session Laws 1983, c. 891, s. 9.

§§ 67-33 through 67-35: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6.

Cross References. - As to the effect of the repeal, see the Editor's note under G.S. 153A-1.

Editor's Note. - Session Laws 1973, c. 822, s. 6(c), provided: "All local acts and clauses of local acts modifying any section of the General Statutes repealed by this section or otherwise relating to the use of the proceeds of the dog tax heretofore levied pursuant to G.S. 67-5 (herein repealed) are repealed."

§ 67-36. Article supplements existing laws.

The provisions of this Article are to be construed as supplementing and not repealing existing State laws pertaining to the ownership, taxation, and control of dogs.

History

(1951, c. 931, s. 7.)

Local Modification. - Chowan, Dare, Pasquotank: 1983, c. 166.