An Act to amend and reenact § 46.1-299, as amended, of the Code of Virginia, relating to devices signalling intention to turn or stop and rules therefor.
Volume 1968 Law 99
Volume | 1956 |
---|---|
Law Number | 679 |
Subjects |
Law Body
CHAPTER 679
An Act to amend and reenact § 29-202, as amended, of the Code of
Me Soni relating to compensation for livestock and poultry killed
gs.
[H 703]
Approved March 31, 1956
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 29-202, as amended, of the Code of Virginia be amended
and reenacted as follows:
§ 29-202. Any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or
injured by any dog not his own shall be entitled to receive as compensation
therefor a reasonable value of such livestock or poultry; provided that in
the counties of Fauquier, Giles, Halifax, Pittsylvania, Washington, Rus-
sell, Tazewell, Patrick, Rockbridge, Fairfax, Carroll, Floyd, and Grayson,
the governing body may compensate the claimant upon the basis of the
assessed value of such livestock and the fair value of unassessed lambs
and poultry, but in no event to exceed the reasonable value thereof.
Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the common law liability
of an owner of a dog for damages committed by it, and when compensation
is paid as above provided, the county or city shall be subrogated to the
extent of compensation paid to the right of action to the owner of such
livestock or poultry against the owner of the dog and may enforce the
same in an appropriate action at law. Claimants for damages shall fur-
nish evidence under oath of quantity and value to the governing body of
the county or of any city within ninety days after sustaining such damage.
Provided, however, that if the governing body of the counties of
Surry, Carroll, Grayson, Susser and Floyd so prescribe by ordinance, no
payment by the county shall be made under this section unless and until
the claimant shall have exhausted his legal remedies against the owner
of the dog doing the damage for which compensation under this section
is sought; such governing body of such county may require the submission
of evidence that the claimant has exhausted his legal remedies against
the owner of the dog, if known.