Nebraska

Summary: This Nebraska statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities and no participant shall make any claim against, maintain an action against, or recover from an equine activity sponsor.  Statutory definitions are provided, including "participant," "inherent risk," and who is considered an "equine sponsor" or "equine professional."  Engages in an equine activity does not include being a spectator at an equine activity except in cases when the spectator places himself or herself in an unauthorized area.  The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law.

Summary: The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

Summary: These statutes comprise the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act.  Included are the definitions used in the Act, the legislative intent behind the Act, and the duty of the commission that oversees the Act.  Violation of the Act constitutes a Class II misdemeanor.

Summary: This statute provides that a farmer or rancher may kill a predator that threatens agricultural or livestock interests without first having obtained a permit.  The provision does not allow a farmer or rancher to destroy those species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other listed federal wildlife acts.

Summary: Nebraska Compiled Statutes from 1887.  The statutes cover cruelty to animals from transportation to negligence in handling.  Also covered is the stealing or interfering with various types of domestic animals.

Summary: These Bridgeport, Nebraska ordinances provide prohibitions and penalties related to dogfighting, cockfighting, bearbaiting or pitting.

Summary: Plaintiff was was the owner of a certain roan mare of the value of $200; that, on or about the 21st day of April, 1888, the said mare became and was sick with some disease then unknown to plaintiff in kind and character; that, at said date last aforesaid, and long prior thereto, the defendant claimed to be, and advertised and held himself out to the public to be, a veterinary surgeon, and asked to be employed as such in the treatment of sick and diseased horses.  The court held that a veterinary surgeon, in the absence of a special contract, engages to use such reasonable skill, diligence, and attention as may be ordinarily expected of persons in that profession. He does not undertake to use the highest degree of skill, nor an extraordinary amount of diligence. In other words, the care and diligence required are such as a careful and trustworthy man would be expected to exercise.  The case was remanded for determination of further proofs.

Summary: The petitioner-defendant challenged her criminal conviction for cruelly neglecting several horses she owned by asserting that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. However, the court of appeals side stepped the petitioners claim that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a farmstead, that she did not own or reside on, because she leased the grass on the farmstead for a dollar by invoking the “open fields” doctrine.    The court held that even if such a lease might implicate the petitioners Fourth Amendment rights in some circumstances, the petitioner here was only leasing a open field, which she cannot have a legitimate expectation of privacy in.

Summary: A married couple owned a pet dog that had a history of injuring other dogs.  The married couple's dog injured a neighbors dog and, under a Nebraska Statute, was ordered to be destroyed.  The Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed the decision holding the penalty was unreasonable.

Summary: Plaintiffs sued defendant for the death of their racehorses resulting from alleged veterinary malpractice.  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact as to whether veterinarian's actions comported with professional standard of care in treating racehorses precluded summary judgment.  However, the owners were not entitled to recover damages for their emotional distress as result of veterinarian's alleged negligent destruction of horses.  Nebraska law has generally regarded animals as personal property and emotional damages cannot be had for the negligent destruction of personal property.