The Court granted review today in S&S Towing & Recovery v. Charnota, asking "[d]oes the second sentence of OCGA 51-2-7 violate procedural due process?"
OCGA 51-2-7 deals with liability for injuries caused by vicious animals:
"A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance . . . and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash."
Succinctly: a person who keeps a dangerous animal is liable for injuries they cause if their carelessness allows the animal to cause harm, provided that the person injured did not provoke the animal. In Charnota, the Court has asked the parties to address whether it violates due process to allow dangerous propensity to be proven by showing the animal was supposed to be on a leash.
The case will likely be argued in early 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment