|
|
|
||||||||
OverviewNew Mexico does not have a dog bite statute. There are two basic grounds for liability: scienter under the one bite rule, and negligence. ScienterThe scienter cause of action is the flip side of the English one bite rule. An owner of a dog is liable for damages proximately caused by the dog if the owner knew, or should have known, that the dog was vicious or had a tendency or natural inclination to be vicious. Perkins v. Drury, 57 N.M. 269, 258 P.2d 379 (1953). This imposes strict liability on the dog owner. Smith v. Village of Ruidoso, 128 N.M. 470, 994 P.2d 50 (Ct. App. 1999). The key to the scienter cause of action is the owner's knowledge of the dangerousness of his dog. "Scienter" is Latin for "knowledge." If the dog owner did not know (or could not have reasonably come to the conclusion) that the dog had the dangerous propensity to bite or otherwise injure people, there will be no liability to the victim. The dog's conduct toward other animals is irrelevant. The vicious propensity of the dog must have been previously manifested against a human being. It is insufficient that the dog exhibited vicious tendencies toward other animals. NegligenceNew Mexico also imposes liability upon a dog owner whose negligence caused injury to the victim. A negligence claim under 41-4-6 NMSA 1978 is appropriate where the dog owner lacks knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities and ineffectively controls the animal in a situation where it would reasonably be expected that injury could occur. Smith v. Village of Ruidoso, 128 N.M. 470, 994 P.2d 50 (Ct. App. 1999). Negligence per seBecause New Mexico imposes liability on the basis of negligence, it can be assumed that liability would be imposed on the basis of negligence per se. Provocation as a defenseNew Mexico has an unusual variation of the provocation defense, in that it requires proof of scienter on the part of the victim. Provocation coupled with scienter on the part of the victim will preclude the owner's liability. The owner of a dog is not liable to the person injured, if the injured person had knowledge of the propensities of the dog and wantonly excited it or voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself in the way of the dog. Important casesPerkins v. Drury, 57 N.M. 269, 258 P.2d 379 (1953) The killing of a dog is lawful under certain circumstancesThe state allows, but does not require, peace officers to "kill any dog in the act of pursuing or wounding livestock or wounding and killing poultry or attacking humans." Section 77-1-9, subd. (B). Laws relating to dog and livestockThe state protects livestock from dogs:
Litigation forms and other materials for attorneys
|
www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections and products, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser, Dog Bite Litigation Forms, What To Do If Your Dog Is Injured Or Killed, Avoiding Liability When You Train, Shelter or Adopt-Out, Anatomy of a Dog Bite Case, and the foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2009 Kenneth M. Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing. Please read the disclaimer and our rules for linking and quoting. Reporters seeking interviews are welcome to contact us by clicking here. |