Georgia

Summary: Victim was attacked and killed by her neighbor's dog. Victim's husband, acting individually and as administrator of his wife's estate, brought action against dog owners and several government defendants, whom he alleged failed to respond to earlier complaints about the dog. The trial court dismissed the action against the government for failure to state a claim, concluding that sovereign and official immunity or, alternatively, the Responsible Dog Ownership Law (OCGA § 4–8–30), barred action against the government defendants. Husband appealed. The appeals court held the trial court did not err in dismissing the action against the county and its employees in their official capacities. The former version of OCGA § 4–8–30, effective at the time of the attack, provided immunity to local governments and their employees from liability for all injuries inflicted by dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action against the employees in their individual capacities based on official immunity, however. By applying the former OCGA § 4–8–30 (2012) to dismiss the action against the employees in their individual capacities, the trial court implicitly rejected the husband’s constitutional challenge to the statute. Judgment was therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court to enter a ruling specifically and directly passing on the husband’s constitutional challenge.

Summary: This is a short overview of Georgia Great Ape law.

Summary: According to the Georgia legislature, the importation, transportation, sale, transfer, and possession of an ape (or any other wild animal) is a privilege, not a right.[1] Under the state’s Wild Animals Law, that privilege will not be granted unless “it can be clearly demonstrated” that those actions will not “pose unnecessary risk to Georgia’s wildlife and other natural resources or to the citizens of and visitors to this state.”[2] All species of apes are classified as “inherently dangerous” animals and as a result are among the most heavily regulated animals in the state.The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. The discussion concludes with a compilation of local ordinances which govern the possession and use of apes within geographic subdivisions of the state.

Summary: This document provides of summary of the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law" (RDOA) of Georgia, signed into law by Governor Deal in 2012.

Summary: This Georgia constitutional amendment was presented to voters on the 2006 ballot. The measure preserves the state's tradition of hunting and fishing for the public good. Amendment 2 passed by a margin of 81% to 19%.

Summary: The Georgia Emergency Operations Plan contains several references to pets during state disasters. Specificaly, Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 considers the need to plan for the "safety and well-being of household pets" and the coordination of "animal evacuation assistance."

Summary: There regulations set out the reguirements for licensing animal shelters, pet dealers, kennels, and stable operators. They also provide provisions for controlling disease and shipping animals into the state.

Summary: This Georgia law enacted in 2010 provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal that is alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust shall terminate upon the death of such animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.

Summary: This Georgia statute represents the state's relevant dog bite strict liability law.  While the law imposes strict liability for injury to a person, the dog (or other animal) must first be considered "vicious" or "dangerous," which can be as simple as showing the animal was required to be leashed per city ordinance.  Second, the animal must be at large by the careless management of the owner.  Finally, the person injured must not have provoked the animal into attacking him or her.

Summary: This section of Georgia laws deals with veterinary liens. Every licensed veterinarian in Georgia has a lien on each animal or pet treated, boarded, or cared for by him or her while in his or her custody and under contract with the owner of the animal or pet for the payment of charges for the treatment, board, or care of the animal or pet. The veterinarian has the right to retain the animal or pet until the charges are paid. There is a ten-day hold period after demand for payment (made in person or by registered or certified mail) until the pet is deemed abandoned and may be disposed of by the veterinary facility.