2017 ORS 609.140¹
Right of action by owner of damaged livestock

(1) The owner of any livestock which has been damaged by being injured, chased, wounded or killed by any dog shall have a cause of action against the owner of such dog for the damages resulting therefrom, including double the value of any livestock killed and double the amount of any damage to the livestock.

(2) If one or more of several dogs owned by different persons participate in damaging any livestock, the owners of the respective dogs shall be jointly and severally liable under this section. The owners of dogs jointly or severally liable under this section have a right of contribution among themselves. The right exists only in favor of an owner who has paid more than the pro rata share of the owner, determined by dividing the total damage by the number of dogs involved, of the common liability, and the total recovery of the owner is limited to the amount paid by the owner in excess of the pro rata share of the owner.

(3) An action brought under this section may be tried as an action at law in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Owner” means the head of the family of the home where the dog is cared for at the time of the damage.

(b) “Head of the family” means any person who has charge or manages the affairs of a collective body of persons residing together, the relations between whom are of a permanent and domestic character. [Amended by 1973 c.655 §7; 1975 c.749 §1]

Notes of Decisions

“Injured” livestock refers to situa­tion where there is no physical contact between dog and livestock but livestock damage results from dog’s ac­tion. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

“Chased” livestock does not require that dog had predatory intent or that livestock suffered damage as result. Roach v. Jackson County, 151 Or App 33, 949 P2d 1227 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Double damages pro­vi­sion is not subject to three-year statute of limita­tions under ORS 12.100 (Action on official act or penalty). Diaz v. Coyle, 152 Or App 250, 953 P2d 773 (1998)

Livestock owner need not prove negligence, recklessness or other state of mind of dog owner. Parker v. Parker, 223 Or App 137, 195 P3d 428 (2008)

Dog owner may be found liable for injury to livestock occurring on prop­erty of dog owner. Parker v. Parker, 223 Or App 137, 195 P3d 428 (2008)

Chapter 609

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Possession and ad­min­is­tra­­tion of sodium pentobarbital by county animal control program, (1982) Vol 42, p 297

  • Illinois Valley News / Scott Jorgensen, Apr 14, 2010
    “Since a horse and unborn foal in Selma were killed by a pack of dogs on March 26, there have been at least two other reported complaints re­gard­ing similar incidents. . . . There are a series of statutes under Oregon law that codify the responsibilities of dog owners. . . .”
1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 609—Dogs; Exotic Animals; Dealers, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors609.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 609, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano609.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.