[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]
The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6183 September 20, 1983 DOGS: Recovery for loss or damage to livestock or poultry bitten by dogs within a city The Dog Law of 1919 makes no provision for a person to file a claim or to recover for loss or damage to livestock or poultry arising from having been bitten by dogs within a city. Fred R. Hunter, III Prosecuting Attorney Allegan County Room 20 County Building Allegan, Michigan 49010 You have requested my opinion on the following questions concerning the Dog Law of 1919; 1919 PA 339; MCLA 287.261 et seq; MSA 12.511 et seq, in light of the fact that the Dog Law of 1919, supra, Sec. 6, requires dog owners, including city residents, to license their dogs and pay license fees: 1. May a city assessor act in the stead of a township supervisor in regard to loss or damage to livestock or poultry by dogs which occurs within a city? 2. Are persons authorized to make claims for damage to poultry or livestock if the damage occurs within a city? When a person sustains loss or damage to livestock or poultry by dogs, the person may make a complaint to the township supervisor or appointed township trustee within the township in which the damage occurred. Upon filing of the complaint, the township supervisor or township trustee is required to make an investigation to determine whether any damage has been sustained and, if so, the amount of the damage. The Dog Law of 1919, supra, Sec. 20. If such investigation determines that damage has been sustained by the complainant, the supervisor or trustee is required to deliver a report of the examination and all papers related to the case to the county board of commissioners. The Dog Law of 1919, supra, Sec. 21. The Dog Law of 1919, supra, Sec. 23, provides: '(1) When the county board of commissioners of the county receives a report of the township supervisor or other person designated by the township board pursuant to section 21, if it appears from the report that a certain amount of damage has been sustained by the claimant, the county board of commissioners shall immediately draw their order on the treasurer of the county in favor of the claimant for the amount of loss or damage which the claimant has sustained, together with all necessary and proper costs incurred. If the claim filed with the board appears from the report filed to be illegal or unjust, the board may make an investigation of the case and make its award accordingly. '(2) An amount awarded pursuant to this section shall be paid by the county out of its general fund. A payment shall not be made for any item which has already been paid by the owner of the dog or dogs doing the injury. If a payment is made by the county for any livestock or poultry bitten by a dog or dogs, the payment shall not exceed the amount allowed by the county board of commissioners.' [Emphasis added.] The legislative history of the Dog Law of 1919, Sec. 20, supra, indicates that it was amended by 1968 PA 38 to substitute the term 'township supervisor or appointed trustee of the township' for 'justice of the peace' throughout that section. See, OAG, 1979-1980, No 5654, p 620 (February 15, 1980), which discussed the constitutional problem of the justice of the peace as a judicial officer carrying out administrative functions, and concluded that a legislative amendment to section 21 was required if the county board of commissioners is to make payment for the loss or damage. Thereafter, 1980 PA 223 was enacted to amend the Dog Law of 1919, Sec. 21, supra, to substitute 'township supervisor or other person designated by the township board' for 'justice of the peace.' The Dog Law of 1919, supra, makes reference to both cities and townships. The title to the Dog Law of 1919, supra, states, in part: 'AN ACT relating to dogs and the protection of livestock and poultry from damage by dogs . . . imposing powers and duties on certain state, county, city and township officials and employees, . . .' The Dog Law of 1919, supra, Sec. 16, states, in part: 'The supervisor of each township and the assessor of every city; . . .' The Dog Law of 1919, supra, Sec. 19, distinguishes between cities and other areas of the state by stating: 'Any dog that enters any field or enclosure which is owned by or leased by a person producing livestock or poultry, outside of a city, unaccompanied by his owner or his owner's agent, shall constitute a trespass, . . .' [Emphasis added.] Therefore, it is clear that the Legislature dealt with both cities and townships in the Dog Law of 1919, supra, and chose to treat cities differently from townships. In the event the Legislature determines there is a need to authorize the filing of claims for loss or damages to livestock or poultry where such loss or damage occurs within a city, the Legislature should make an appropriate amendment to the Dog Law of 1919, supra. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Dog Law of 1919, supra, does not authorize city assessors to act in the stead of township supervisors or appointed township trustees to investigate and report on complaints for loss or damage sustained by claimant for injury to livestock or poultry from having been bitten by a dog within a city. It is my further opinion that the Dog Law of 1919, supra, does not authorize the filing of a claim for loss or damage to livestock or poultry where such loss or damage was sustained within a city. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General
[ Previous Page] [ Home Page ]