Why didn't they file a motion to dismiss using:
TITLE 25
ANIMALS
CHAPTER 28
DOGS
25-2806. LIABILITY FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY KILLED BY DOGS. The owner,
possessor, or harborer of any dog or animal that kills, worries, or wounds any
livestock and poultry which are raised and kept in captivity for domestic or
commercial purposes, is liable to the owner of the same for the damages and
costs of suit, to be recovered before any court of competent jurisdiction:
1. In the prosecution of actions under the provisions of this section it
is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the owner, possessor, or
harborer of such dog or other animal had knowledge of the fact that such dog
or other animal would kill or wound livestock or poultry which are raised and
kept in captivity for domestic or commercial purposes.
2. Any person, on finding any dog, not on the premises of its owner or
possessor, worrying, wounding, or killing any livestock or poultry which are
raised and kept in captivity for domestic or commercial purposes, may, at the
time of so finding said dog, kill the same, and the owners thereof can sustain
no action for damages against any person so killing such dog.
Code:
As a ruling on law, that should have been a slam dunk.
--Carl
Maybe they were wild cows and the owner was not raising themfor anycommercial purposes. Yea. Yea, that must be it. I am sure that came out at trial. :banghead::banghead: End sarcasm. I agree it should have been a slam dunk and the owner of the dogs made to pay for the cows, the rounds to kill his dogs, expense of getting them off the property, the call to the police and any other expenses incurred by the owner of the cows.
