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 | 1954 |
---|---|
Law Number | 130 |
Subjects |
Law Body
CHAPTER 130
An Act to amend and reenact § 29-202, as amended, of the Code of Vir-
ginta, relating to compensation for poultry and livestock killed by dogs.
[H 493]
Approved March 3, 1954
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, Rockbridge, Fair-
fax, 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 rea-
sonable 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 of
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 furnish 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 county of Surry,
Carroll, Grayson 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 govern-
ing body of such county may require the submission of evidence that the
claimant has exhausted his legal remedies against the owner of the dog,
i own. |