VIRGINIA LAW PORTAL

• Code of Virginia
• Virginia Administrative Code
• Constitution of Virginia
• Charters
• Authorities
• Compacts
• Uncodified Acts
• RIS Users (account required)

SEARCHABLE DATABASES

• Bills & Resolutions
  session legislation
• Bill Summaries
  session summaries
• Reports to the General Assembly
  House and Senate documents
• Legislative Liaisons
  State agency contacts

ACROSS SESSIONS

• Subject Index: Since 1995
• Bills & Resolutions: Since 1994
• Summaries: Since 1994

Developed and maintained by the Division of Legislative Automated Systems.

2014 SESSION

• history | hilite | pdf | print version

14104066D
SENATE BILL NO. 432 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE (Proposed by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources on January 16, 2014) (Patron Prior to Substitute--Senator McDougle) A BILL to amend and reenact § 3.2-6553 of the Code of Virginia, relating to compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 3.2-6553 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 3.2-6553. Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs.

Any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or injured by any dog not his own shall be entitled to receive as compensation the fair market value of such livestock or poultry not to exceed $400 $750 per animal or $10 per fowl if: (i) the claimant has furnished evidence within 60 days of discovery of the quantity and value of the dead or injured livestock and the reasons the claimant believes that death or injury was caused by a dog; (ii) the animal control officer or other officer shall have been notified of the incident within 72 hours of its discovery; and (iii) the claimant first has exhausted his legal remedies against the owner, if known, of the dog doing the damage for which compensation under this section is sought. Exhaustion shall mean a judgment against the owner of the dog upon which an execution has been returned unsatisfied.

Local jurisdictions may by ordinance waive the requirements of clause (ii) or (iii) or both provided that the ordinance adopted requires that the animal control officer has conducted an investigation and that his investigation supports the claim. Upon payment under this section, the local governing body shall be subrogated to the extent of compensation paid to the right of action to the owner of the livestock or poultry against the owner of the dog and may enforce the same in an appropriate action at law.